> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Some thoughts on that suggestion. > 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. Me two. > 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. I think that the definition of a URI form is useful, e.g. dix:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROVIDED that the spec makes it clear that this is a means of machine disambiguation and not something that MUST be exposed in the user interface. URIs were not intended as or designed to be a user interface. If someone is asked to provide their dix identifier they should not need to type dix: in front of it. If a dix identifier is entered in a context where the binding is ambiguous the scheme prefix may be a useful technique. _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
