Bill, yes, see the summary of the syntax at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/GraphModelStructure. This was the result of the syntax simplification effort that took most of the spring.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Barnhill, William [USA] <> wrote:
Syntax question from the example…can XDI addresses have GT and LT signs in them now? Ex:
=a*b<+c>&/&/"hello"
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:59 AM
To: Markus Sabadello
Cc: OASIS - XDI TC
Subject: [External] Re: [xdi] A quick link contract riddle
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Markus Sabadello <> wrote:
I thought I'd share this with the list:
Let's say we have this graph:
=a*b<+c>&/&/"hello"
=a/+friend/=x
And this link contract in the same graph:
$do/$get/=a*b
Now let's look at the following two messages:
Message 1:
=sender[$msg]!1$do/$get/(=a/+friend/=x)
=sender[$msg]!1/$do/$do
Message 2:
=sender[$msg]!1$do/$get/(=a/()/*b)
=sender[$msg]!1/$do/$do
Message 1 will obviously fail, because the link contract doesn't cover the requested statement.
Now my question is, will Message 2 fail or succeed? Anyone?
It should succeed. Reason: If the link contract authorizes the sender (which you didn't show any policy for) to get =a*b, then I believe it should authorize the sender to discover that =a has a subcontext *b. In
otherwise, implicit context statements should be included in the authorization policy.
If it ends out being a security issue, I could see us adding a policy statement covering whether discovery of implicit statements is allowed under the link contract or not.
Is that what you are asking?
=Drummond
