I have updated http://wiki.eclipse.org/R-Card per #1 below.
I need help from Markus to update it per #2. After #2 is done we can update #3. --Paul On 5/10/09 9:11 PM, "Paul Trevithick" <[email protected]> wrote: > For discussion: > > 1. Removing the static resource-udi element [1] > > After discussion with John Bradley and Markus Sabadello I now see that it > would be better to eliminate the static resource-udi element from the r-card > card XML. Why? (a) It is redundant with the resource-udi claim (b) worse than > redundant, it is static whereas the claim value is dynamic thus it may have an > inconsistent value compared to the dynamic value (c) by removing it an r-card > becomes really just a ³profile² of a managed cardthe card .crd file contains > no extra XML elements when compared to a regular m-card (just a rather special > claim type URI). The disadvantage is that now any client (including a > selector) must authenticate to the STS and request the resource-udi in order > to learn its value. If it had to do this every time, performance could suffer. > Nevertheless, we¹re going to assume that some clever caching can address this > drawback and thus make this change. > > 2. [Optionally] allowing the resource-udi's value to be an XRD > > After discussions with John, Markus and Drummond Reed we now believe that the > value should either be a UDI [as it is today] or [and this is the new option] > an "inline" XRD document. The option to inline the XRD allows what John calls > ³private discovery² option in addition to the current [public] discovery > options used during UDI resolution. This addresses some privacy leakage > inherent in public discovery. > > Note that there is an interop issue with CardSpace 1.0 & 1.5 in that these > versions (unlike the forthcoming "Geneva" (2.0) release) are badly behaved WRT > XML that they don't understand; namely, that these versions don't preserve it > on export. But the interop situation with this proposed change is no worse > than it was WRT to the previous approach. > > 3. Renaming "resource-udi" to "resource-udr" at the ICF > > Since per #2 above the value isn't necessarily a UDI (it might be a UDI or an > inlined-XRD), we should rename this claim if possible. This should be okay > with the ICF since (a) it was only voted "provisional" [to capture its > ³experimental² status] and (b) only one project is yet using this claim type. > > [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/R-Card#XML_Format > > --Paul
_______________________________________________ higgins-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
