[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: APP Meta-discussion

To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: APP Meta-discussion
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:19:33 -0400
Cc: Atom Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)

Tim Bray wrote:

4. The ball on PaceBatch is still in play. Unlike PaceCategorize, there are people who like the idea. However, there are others who say "premature optimization". Kyle says he'll do some numbers to help us ascertain what, in the real world, PaceBatch might buy us.

And there are others who say "possible gaping security issue", since decisions about which authentication credentials to send are now in the application layer, rather than the HTTP layer.

Robert Sayre

References:
- APP Meta-discussion
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
Next by Date: Re: APP Meta-discussion
Previous by thread: APP Meta-discussion
Next by thread: Re: APP Meta-discussion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread