Subject: RE: Using Network Access Identifiers (NAI) from RFC4282 (was Re: [dix]requirements)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:39:04 -0800

> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> Some thoughts on that suggestion.

> 2. The identity "redirects" of RFC4282 -- the part that 
> requires the "!" (exclamation mark) separator between realms 
> -- is of unclear purpose to me.  It might muddy the waters as 
> I think assertable digital identity does not require 
> redirects.  I may be wrong.

Me two.

> 3.  Why aren't those identifiers in URI format?  URI format 
> is very useful for building on many Web technologies.  If 
> RF4282 were used, I would think it would have to be with a 
> scheme added to be URI compliant.

I think that the definition of a URI form is useful, e.g.
dix:[email-masked]

PROVIDED that the spec makes it clear that this is a means of machine
disambiguation and not something that MUST be exposed in the user
interface. URIs were not intended as or designed to be a user interface.

If someone is asked to provide their dix identifier they should not need
to type dix: in front of it. If a dix identifier is entered in a context
where the binding is ambiguous the scheme prefix may be a useful
technique.

_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix