> -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Venkatraman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:33 PM > To: 'Digital Identity Exchange' > Subject: RE: [dix] draft of proposed charter (#2) > > > What's the difference between "first spec'd binding" as you > used those > > words above and "mandatory" as I described? My point is > that a working > > group is going to have to craft a spec that allows two > implementations to > > interoperate. If someone implements something using http, > and someone > > else does something different (and the specs allow both) > such that they > > don't interoperate, then there is going to be a problem. > The foundation > > that allows interoperability MUST be specified in the charter. > > I'm arguing that the foundation for interoperation is the DIX > protocol and > not the binding to a specific transport protocol (HTTP). By making a > particular binding "mandatory" for all implementations, you > are potentially > limiting future choices. For instance, would I be forced to > implement HTTP > in all XMPP and SIP clients and proxies even though XMPP and > SIP bindings > may exist? And that begs the question - why HTTP?
OK, I agree with the "why HTTP" question. That's one you guys need to figure out. I'm telling you now, though, that a charter that does not describe at least one method to produce interoperable implementations will not be approved by the IESG. -Scott- _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
