Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
The first version of SSP that is standardized needs to have a much
shorter and simpler decision tree, if interoperable deployment is to
be achieved anytime soon after publication.
This reminds me of the famous line in the movie "Amadeus": "...there are
simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be
perfect."
Jim,
Were my suggestion equally whimsical, the Amadeus reference would be
apt and possibly even clever
Unfortunately, it was based on extended observation of what seems to
deploy and get used, versus what does not.
Forgive my attempt to insert a bit of levity into the discussion. We
mustn't have any of that.
Jim,
Well, since I did say that it would have been clever if it had been on point,
I'm certainly not one to object to attempts at humor.
However given the list's long history of seeking to reject challenging
questions through overt or passive aggressive hostile dismissals, forgive *me*
for thinking that this was merely one more such note added to the wg soup.
Again, note that the remainder of your note was, indeed, a dismissal of my
concern, declaring concern over complexity, by itself, as out of scope.
Complexity is clearly relevant, and should be a consideration in
everything we do. My point about this particular issue is that it's
seeking to do something about the dependent variable (the number of
steps in the algorithm) while we should be dealing with this at the root
cause (e.g., removal of the testing flag).
It appears that you are distinguish between symptom and cause, which is always
useful. But it also appears that you are taking exception to my noting a
symptom that I view as correlating well with a problematic cause. That, I
guess, is where we differ.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html