RE: [dix] on the dix: URI scheme for DIX/SXIP

It seems to me that tying the URL to the DIX protocol is a bad idea for the
reason Dan gives.

Tying the URL to a DNS indirection to the DIX/SAML/WS-*/whatever protocol is
much more future proof.

Who was it who said every problem in computer science can be solved...

	Phill  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:ben@algroup.co.uk] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 1:11 PM
> To: McDonald, Ira
> Cc: Digital Identity Exchange; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [dix] on the dix: URI scheme for DIX/SXIP
> 
> McDonald, Ira wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> > 
> > With respect to "scarce":
> > 
> > Although I have mixed feelings about the logic, the brand 
> new RFC 4395 
> > "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes" argues 
> > that the bar should be very high for a new 'Permanent' URI scheme, 
> > because so many browsers and other bits of client software 
> will have 
> > to updated for the URI scheme to become widely deployed and used.
> 
> I guess that DIX is an example of a proposal that drives a 
> truck through that argument. Clearly all that s/w has to be 
> changed _no matter how_ you represent DIX. It seems likely to 
> me that this is generally true, too, but I'm not planning to 
> make a stand against 4395 on that basis :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/
> 
> "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go 
> if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dix mailing list
> dix@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
> 
>