Some thoughts on that suggestion.
1. The terminology of RFC4282 assumes a "Network Access Server" but
there's no structural reason that can't be any identity server, not
just the one that's providing the user with network access.
2. The identity "redirects" of RFC4282 -- the part that requires the
"!" (exclamation mark) separator between realms -- is of unclear
purpose to me. It might muddy the waters as I think assertable
digital identity does not require redirects. I may be wrong.
3. Why aren't those identifiers in URI format? URI format is very
useful for building on many Web technologies. If RF4282 were used, I
would think it would have to be with a scheme added to be URI compliant.
Lisa
On Feb 27, 2006, at 2:40 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:
What about using a Network Access Identifier (NAI) [RFC 4282]?
John
On Feb 27, 2006, at 3:30 PM, John Merrells wrote:
But, DIX could use some other namespace that has the right
properties.
URIs, or as Phillip proposed email addresses.
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
