XRID proposal for YADIS - Opinions anybody?

[Benjamin Yu]

My initial thoughts:

1. I'll need some more time to dig into the spec.

2. From what I initially see, the Resolution doc is a protocol for transforming
an XRI's authority part into a hard URL. From which we can then examine that
final XRI Descriptor xml file for the Service References (and other meta data).

3. If we are just saying that the XML Descriptor format is to be used as the
serialized format (view/representation) of the services, then I really don't
see any difficulties with this part. This view/representation is pretty much as
good as any others. We could use the Accept HTTP header to get preferred
representations. YADIS could define that set of acceptable representations.

4. But if consumers are forced to support the intermediate XRI resolution steps
of determining the final XRI Descriptor authority, then I feel that it may be
overloading YADIS. 

4a. I personally don't want to write up code to deal with the xri:*. The only
thing I want in my code is a GET request to my http client. I think that XRI
support in this manner needs to be left up to the XRI protocol library that my
http client will use.

4b. And for the most part, I think that people will just be using POHU (Plain
Old HTTP URIs) at this point.

5. If YADIS requires a more complicated service discovery mechanism, we should
also research other specs and papers that have been publish about service
discovery. Then weigh what we have learned.

"An Architecture for a Secure Service Discovery Service"
http://iceberg.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/Czerwin-Mobicom99/

"Really Simple Discovery"
http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/tech/rsd.html

"Service Location Protocol, Version 2"
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2608.txt

"A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)"
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2782.txt

"Remote Service Discovery in the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV"
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3832.txt

-Ben

--- Ernst Johannes <jernst+lists.danga.com at netmesh.us> wrote:

> Is nobody saying anything because it's so obviously good that it  
> doesn't need to be commented on, or so obviously bad that it doesn't  
> need to be commented on, or ...? ;-)
> 
>  From my perspective, it looks fine so far, and if we can "reuse" a  
> standard instead of inventing a new one, I would consider this to be  
> A Good Thing.
> 
> On Nov 6, 2005, at 11:31, David Recordon wrote:
> 
> > Drummond,
> > Thanks for getting this posted!  Hopefully people can start digging  
> > into it the next few days and we all can have another YADIS spec  
> > proposal not long after.
> >
> > --David
> 
> Johannes Ernst
> >   http://netmesh.info/jernst
> 
> 
> 
> 



Blog: http://www.badpopcorn.com/
Homepage: http://www.foofiles.com/u/byu/