Subject: [dix] Charter and example Internet Draft

From: Joaquin Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:43:00 -0800

Folks:

Nick, with his usual insight, has put his finger on what has been troubling me.

We seem to be trying to bite off way more than a mouthful.
There are several good reasons to separate the parts
and tackle them one at a time:

    easier to get this established at IETF;
    greatly simplify the work on each part;
    a cleaner work product;
    several distinct and useful protocols,
         which can each be combined in various ways
         with other established protocols.

There is a lot of work to do.
It may be best to:

   bite off what can be fairly quickly chewed,
   deliver something solid and ready to use,
   see it used
   while we get on with the next bite.

Cordially,  Joaquin

On 27 January, Nick Ragouzis wrote:

>(Note that in the following I am only assuming the submitted
>Internet Draft is intended only as an exemplar and descriptive of
>use cases (i.e., the productions of such cases); not more than that.
>It is at the Charter this note is directed.)
>
>Comments I've received on the discussion of lightness (or not)
>of just one pre-existing identity-domain protocol really just
>point me to an underlying problem in the proposed charter and
>the I-D: when defense about the fitness of a protocol on one
>dimension (identity token) is carried forward principally by
>advancing the *other* merits of that protocol (web page editing),
>then that protocol has likely wound together too many goals.
>A similar dynamic has played out on the list. That's prompted
>me to take another look at the discussion abt the charter,
>and the I-D.
>
>I find the "DIX protocol" of the I-D to be a combination of
>protocols (in a most general meaning) at various levels and to
>various ends. As such it is more the "DIX Service", a vertically-
>integrated system (here using DIX less as a meaningful acronym
>but more, merely, as a label). Maybe that's just me, just waking
>up (or being excused from jury duty). I think that design and
>adoption of such vertically-integrated systems have some well
>known characteristics, but ease of specification for wide
>interoperability and future proofing (and actual implementation
>of such interoperability) isn't one of them.
><snip>

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