John Merrells wrote:
On 20-Jan-06, at 10:27 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:OK, I agree with the "why HTTP" question. That's one you guys need to figure out. I'm telling you now, though, that a charter that does notdescribe at least one method to produce interoperable implementations willnot be approved by the IESG.I've been chewing this over all day: We can't mandate that the other party in the exchange implement
Isn't the point of issue here that there needs to be documented a way to (stealing the words) "produce interoperable implementations" so that it can be shown that it _works_ by having "interoperable implementations" - this isn't a question of mandating anything, but codifying how using the protocol over one method of transport would work.
So rather than this, a document describing the protocol over, say, HTTP would be a deliverable."To ensure interoperability between implementations we mandate that the user's client and their agent must support at least DIX over HTTP."
-- Pete
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
