On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 02:50:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Carsten> Do we really need to change HTTP for DIX?
> No! I think the intended scope of DIX is to work within the existing > HTTP capabilities. In fact, DIX is intended to work in an > HTML/browser environment, rather than in non-HTML applications such as > WEBDAV or even browser-based AJAX schemes. Which, given the complaints we've seen about SAML not catering to REST applications (+ counter arguments that either it's very close or could easily be profiled to cater to them also) one wonders: why should DIX be so limited? I'm not interested in furthering the divide between browser and non-browser based applications, unless there's a very clear way forward to address that gap (including no conflicts with DIX/SAML/YADIS/...). > I'd like to discuss changes to HTTP somewhere, but probably not on the DIX > list. Well, OK, there are fora for that, but whether it should be discussed here depends on what sorts of changes we'd be talking about and how closely related to DIX they would be. Though it certainly seems too soon -- the problem statement alone needs plenty of work... Nico -- _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
