Then I would suggest not designing the it like that.
Why is there this prevalent belief that if one doesn't like an
approach, for some other reason, the right thing to do is to propose a
really bad design for it and then assert that those design flaws make
the original idea untenable?
I can't imagine, for example, anyone ever having approved the original
DNS proposals if this were the atmosphere. And that was back in, what,
1983? Imagine! A series of query-response transactions down through a
tree of hosts just to map a host name to an IP number! Couldn't ever
work! Do you have any idea how many host names, between mail and ftp
and everything else people do, are looked up *per second*?! etc etc
etc.
Anyhow, does anyone else see how futile it is if a proposal is
immediately jumped on with "Too many computrons!!!", unless there's
something terribly inherent to the proposal, like you have to break a
significant crypto code to send mail? I don't think mere
recordkeeping, authorization, etc qualifies as a priori sort of too
many computrons.
On April 28, 2004 at 15:35 rogerk(_at_)queernet(_dot_)org (Roger B.A. Klorese )
wrote:
Barry Shein wrote:
E-mail transactions, philip, that was the original assertion I was
responding to, not my assertion. What you are responding to is
anybody's guess.
The idea, Barry, is that the business transaction (as in database and
application interaction -- you know, what 99% of the IT world thiks of
when you say "transaction") that is needed to support postage is likely
to be much heavier-weight than the protocol interaction that is required
to deliver the message itself.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg