- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:28:40 -0800
- To: "Digital Identity Exchange" <dix@ietf.org>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD3797D6B3@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
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 > >
Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 22:28:54 UTC