On 19-Jan-06, at 6:59 PM, Suresh Venkatraman wrote:
John, I would suggest that your charter should describe a need to
specify
at least one "mandatory to implement" transport/messaging protocol to
ensure a minimal level of interoperability. I don't care if you use
weasel words now to avoid picking one at charter time, but you should
commit to settling on one.
I agree and disagree - the core of DIX will be transport
independent. The
only spec'd binding in the charter is for HTTP, therefore there is a
"minimal level of interoperability" for the first set of
implementations by
virtue of having only one spec'd binding. After that there will be
specs for
other bindings and there's no reason why different identity realms
can't
implement their own bindings or all the bindings (HTTP - Web Apps,
SIP -
VoIP, XMPP - IM, etc,).
I think Scott's point is that we mandate that the parties must
implement one
particular binding. I'm uneasy about this because there may be use cases
where it doesn't make sense. There's two pieces to the protocol.
agent to user - DIX over X
user to relying party - DIX over Y
In the internet phone use case we we're just talking about, X could be
HTTP and Y could be SIP. So we can't really mandate that all three
parties implement either HTTP or SIP.
Hmm...
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
