[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sasl in beep or payload
With "s/probably/possibly/" I'd have no problem with what you've
In any case, I still maintain (and others disagree, and we'll be
running a strawpoll that'll make that disagreement moot) that the
strawpoll at the meeting had nothing to do with http, but only
addressed the placement of sasl pdus.
Anyway, let's sort out the substrates issue and then revisit the
sasl-pdu placement if its not obvious at that stage.
Keith Moore wrote:
> > The reason I did that was that there were a bunch of people in the room
> > with very strong opinions but who, as far as I can tell, aren't interested
> > in sacred per se, but *only* in the broader issues. I acknowledge that some
> > of this group (yourselves and Keith included) do bring to bear some serious
> > levels of experience. In any case, the "*only*" above, is the reason why I
> > limited the poll at the meeting to implementors - we were, and still perhaps
> > are, in serious danger that the "right thing in general", is the wrong thing
> > for those who want to implement, the downside being that we produce a lovely
> > proposed standard rfc, but no code.
> I'd characterize it somewhat differently.
> There are some who undrestand how difficult it will be to both specify and
> implement a protocol that requires multiple transactions over http in a way
> that works with the existing http infrastructure (servers, client libraries,
> caches, firewalls). And there are some who don't.
> Also, it's probably a mistake to claim that your former group isn't
> interested in sacred per se - the fact that they only speak up when they
> see a danger of a bad decision being made should not be taken as an
> indicator of a lack of interest in the technology.
Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx