- From: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:35:54 -0700
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <937D4072-908E-4F98-B1AD-287DE8A9591D@wingaa.com>
Hi David. I think we are saying the same thing. Perhaps a semantic difference in our use of significant vs specific. On 30-Jul-08, at 10:04 AM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: >> From: John Bradley [mailto:john.bradley@wingaa.com] > [ . . . ] >>>> * use the least specific bits of the domain name >>> >>> That would also be fine if the owner of that URI space >>> chooses to establish that convention. >> >> This is convenient in that it allows multiple proxies without >> registration. The downside is that it confers special >> meaning on a host name and can have an impact on people who >> don't want to participate in the sub-scheme. >> >> Why should someone tell me that xri or xmpp is a reserved >> host name. I can see this leading to all sorts of great. >> >> It is equivalent to saying that part of the http protocol >> will only apply to hosts named www. > > Hold on, it sounds like I misunderstood your short-hand. When you > said one of the options was: > Sorry was referring to least significant , most specific or prefix as in the host name. An example http://www.*.*/ My point is I think yours that having a host name of www should not in itself confer special meaning to the URI. While tempting from a distributed configuration point of view, it is bad design. >>>> * use the least specific bits of the domain name > > I thought you were talking about using http://hxri.xri.net/ as a URI > prefix to indicate that all URIs matching http://hxri.xri.net/* > conform to a particular URI convention and should be interpreted as > HXRIs. It would *not* be okay to claim that all URIs matching http://hxri > .*.*/* should be interpreted as HXRIs. The XRI TC does not have the > authority to define the special conventions for http://hxri.*.*/*, > but the owner of xri.net *does* have the authority to define special > conventions for http://hxri.xri.net/* . > > I am arguing that the most significant, least specific or suffix part of the domain name be used. an example http://*.*.xri./ This will require some work at the DNS level to allow auto configuration of multiple proxies. I agree with you it is the better design. I don't think using a single fully qualified domain name is desirable for scalability reasons. I don't think it should be precluded, but the design should support multiple proxies under different administrative control. Regards John Bradley OASIS IDTRUST-SC http://xri.net/=jbradley 五里霧中 > > > David Booth, Ph.D. > HP Software > +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com > http://www.hp.com/go/software > > Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not > necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so > stated.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 17:36:37 UTC