At 01:40 16/07/04, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
> Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > Thus, we are talking about a two-party consent case. Nothing "bad"
> > is happening in jfc examples from consent point of view.
> So, what you're saying is that (a) there are mechanisms in place
> that can prevent things like the ones described in the example, and
> (b) if users accept an environment that doesn't use these
> mechanisms, they implicitly accept that things mentioned in the
> example can happen, so they basically consent that this can happen?
OPES cannot be blamed for breaking something that is already broken.
OPES are violating the principles of the Internet. This is not that much
visible with HTTP because HTTP is real time one end to one end.
On can support the idea that OPES is a nasty idea, or that the Internet
is "broken" (limited). I support the second one.
If something is already broken, OPES should not be expected to fix it.
This is not a good response - or stop working on them.
OPES can provide limited answers to needs the Internet cannot address.
But they do it in breaking the architectural principles of the Internet
(protocol on the wire, end to end, smart host/dumb network, ... etc.
please refer yourself to Harald's IETF mission Draft "core principles").
No to waste our time and to provide a good service, we can work
on where your OPES concepts can provide solutions,
The charter must define these limits.
- Either we work on SMTP Mail part and the mails are massaged when
stored on an agent, we are outside the network (you defined the OPES
that way against my suggestions). OCP is used for its qualities.
- Or we work on SMTP Transfer part and only the headers are massaged
and this corresponds to a gigantic extrension of the SMTP protocol. I
suppose several other WG will be interested.
- Or we work on an hyper-inter-complex-mail-transfer protocol as you
plan. OK. You ask for an example. Please tell me what in the charter
would prevent me to take the expected result and build a good and
complete working model of the world's evolution since the Big Bang.
Just HICMTP and OPES.
Again, I have nothing against it (I presisely think _it_is_ the way it
works(ed)). But I feel a first attempt calls for more precise
boundaries or explanations and - even if you dislike it - to tell what
But again, I may be dumb stupid. Or a complete fool. I have no
objection to you demonstrating that no one needs an architect
when building a house. But you have to do it. I am not to demonstrate
you are wrong here, you have to demonstrate you are right. Convince
me and I will support you.
After all, all what I am trying to do is to avoid you waste your skills,
time and OPES/P/OCP image just because you will deliver a good
1% of what you claimed you would. Spend a little more time in
defining your target as 1% so you will be thanked for delivering
100% of what you promised.