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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 1:11 PM
> To: McDonald, Ira
> Cc: Digital Identity Exchange; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
>
>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
