On 20-Jan-06, at 10:40 AM, Peter Davis wrote:
If you really want this to be a compossible identity framework,
than perhaps
the path sought is really 2 drafts. One for the core specification,
the
other for the particular transport binding the wg feels is most
likely to
see adoption (or has unfulfilled requirements), which may be
HTTP . It
also allows other specs to incorporate nicely into some new transport.
That's the approach the charter is taking at the moment.
In draft #2 I called out the expected documents that would
come out of a WG and they're in the milestone section.
Is the text not clear on that?
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
