On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Suresh Venkatraman wrote:
So, yes, my point is that for whatever reason there is an extant plethora
of identity-asserting protocols, and they aren't simply going to dry up
and blow away because this working group is formed, and perhaps re-invents
another wheel.
In order for DIX to be approved by the IESG we need to choose one of the
identity-asserting protocols. That could mean a subset of an existing
standard (SAMLv2) or creating one that can provide an "interoperable
implementation". Emerging or alternative protocols could be added in later.
Given the number of existing and lively identity-asserting protocols it
seems more valuable to create a standard that provides for an
interoperable implementation - it also seems the most likely way to avoid the
endless internecine debate of which existing identity-asserting protocol
should be considered 'best', and allow this group to move forward.
IMO, leveraging existing identifiers (URI's, URL's, Mail Addresses) and
discovery mechanisms (DNS) are more interesting than trying to reinvent the
wheel. It's much easier to codify DIX with well known and widely-used
identifiers. OTOH I would want DIX to keep the core spec open for emerging
or alternative identifiers (e.g. XRI's).
agreed.
cheers!
==========================================================================
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
