Proposal for an XRI (i-name) profile
drummond.reed at cordance.net
Mon Apr 3 19:53:22 UTC 2006
My last message and yours crossed in the mail. Option (1) of your message is
the behaviour I was addressing.
The reason option (1b) doesn't make that much sense is that an XRI is not
typically just "resolved to a URL", but rather resolved to: a) one or more
URIs that correspond to a specified Service Type identified by a URI or XRI,
or b) in a corner case, to one or more URIs that correspond to the Service
Type being null.
In the (a) case, the specified Service Type would be one of the
authentication service types a Relying Party is seeking, so there would be
no need to use the Yadis protocol with the URI. The (b) case would only be
needed if an XRI was used as the value of the <URI> element inside a service
endpoint, which may happen in the future but I think is a corner case for
From: yadis-bounces at lists.danga.com [mailto:yadis-bounces at lists.danga.com]
On Behalf Of Joaquin Miller
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Yadis list
Subject: RE: Proposal for an XRI (i-name) profile
Thanks, Drummond for your message which amounts to both a proof that some
changes are not needed and a handbook for implementing in a way that is open
to several schemes.
There is something I would like to understand better:
1) The relying party uses the identifier to retrieve the Yadis XRDS document
(using the Yadis protocol for URLs, and using XRI resolution or proxy
resolution for XRIs)
Is that different from the following?
1b) The relying party uses the identifier to retrieve the Yadis XRDS
document (using the Yadis protocol for URLs and, in the case of the
identifier being an XRI, using XRI resolution to obtain a corresponding URL
and then using the Yadis protocol with that URL)
If it is different, then do we have two options for this step?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the yadis