Similar to my recommendations on avoiding crystal ball arguments in
designing SSP, I would like to encourage us to avoid arguing about SSP
market demand. Again this thread from Dave and Arvel is a great
illustration.
I think lots and lots of folks want strict/deny. (Of course I count
myself among them so how's that for bias!)
Dave and others think there is a small, non-Internet scale bunch that
want it.
There is no proof that Arvel and I am right. But I do think there are
enough people making this argument that there is a credible, if
unproven, need. I think we should err on meeting this possible need
rather than disregarding this possible need.
pat
Contrast this with the view that this feature is quite
useful among a
small, cooperative collection of services that have agreed
to use it.
While this is not Internet scale -- by which I mean broad
adoption with
massive breadth of use and no prior arrangement among the
users -- it is
a perfectly credible capability, albeit one that needs to
be treated as
a specialized facility, rather than a general one.
I hope that I have completely misunderstood.
The notion that we should embrace a plurality of closed, specialized,
and proprietary approaches to what should be an open industry
standard
freely available to all is antithetical to the IETF purpose (as I
understand that purpose) and is specifically contrary to what
we, as a
working group, are chartered to achieve. Therefore, it is
out of step
both with the spirit and the scope of our chartered work and should
simply be discarded upon that basis.
Also, I can not stress this point enough: "specialized
facilities" (as
opposed to general ones) have a way of becoming entrenched
and remaining
specialized. This is not healthy for the larger community.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html