>> "To ensure interoperability between implementations we mandate
>> that the user's client and their agent must support at least DIX
>> over HTTP."
>>
> So rather than this, a document describing the protocol over, say, HTTP
> would be a deliverable.
Actually, this was already part of both proposals:
Goals and Milestones:
April 2007 - Submit DIX Protocol to IESG for consideration as Proposed
Standard
April 2007 - Submit DIX HTTP Transport Binding to IESG for consideration
as Proposed Standard
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete
Rowley
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:34 PM
To: Digital Identity Exchange
Subject: Re: [dix] draft of proposed charter (#2)
John Merrells wrote:
>
> On 20-Jan-06, at 10:27 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> I've been chewing this over all day:
>
> We can't mandate that the other party in the exchange implement
Isn't the point of issue here that there needs to be documented a way to
(stealing the words) "produce interoperable implementations" so that it
can be shown that it _works_ by having "interoperable implementations"
- this isn't a question of mandating anything, but codifying how using
the protocol over one method of transport would work.
> "To ensure interoperability between implementations we mandate
> that the user's client and their agent must support at least DIX
> over HTTP."
>
So rather than this, a document describing the protocol over, say, HTTP
would be a deliverable.
--
Pete
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
