[OpenID] Comment on new Draft host-meta

[Peter Williams]

I don't believe my own model - though sound and valid - is correct. Its not
what they want to convey.

But it makes more sense than the actual writeup.

I suspect the writeup actually wants to turn the intepretation I layed out
the other way around: from authority naming (my interpretation) to resource
identification (the intended construct). 

In the latter case, the scope is not an inverse functional naming equiv
class, but reach rule defines a class of resource identifiers that this
(unnamed) "resource authority" has jurisdiction to speak for the locator(s)
... of the identified resources' metadatas.

That is... it's a standard for a metadata discovery cloud! Which is what
Dirk said months ago.

But... they are having a hard time phrasing that, because they getting all
tied up in abstractions about abstractions.

If you assume that the authority components of the URLs of the resource now
identified (and tied to the unnamed resource id authority) are domain names,
where domain names have RRs in DNS (and those RRs are signed in a
hierarchical naming structure, now you get to use DNS and its registration
and the CNAMES to build a synonym graph of resource authority jurisdictions

Dump XRI compound names, use domain names instead, keep XRD (now with terms
swap for all the fields), and leverage signed DNS for name resolution. Where
appropriate, sign and counter-sign the XRDs, allow for non-DNS-based "trust
domains" with signing keys/cert to impose reliance rules (and make walled
garden trust space within the common DNS space).

Just speculating... of course. I simply ask: What would *I* do, if I worked
for DARPA.

-----Original Message-----
From: SitG Admin [mailto:sysadmin at shadowsinthegarden.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:49 PM.
To: Peter Williams
Cc: openid-general at lists.openid.net
Subject: RE: [OpenID] Comment on new Draft host-meta

>The subject's presence or absence is nothing more than that for me 
>(not that I know what I'm talking about).

Oh, good. I was getting worried that I couldn't seem to build any 
sort of technical model from what you were saying. But if you were 
just describing the politics, I think I understood what you were 
saying.

-Shade