Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
1. None of these are standards - in other words 'drive a different
car, you have plenty of choices'
Exactly, the point was that the trend is towards a (unsecured) common
method.
2. Analogies suck, let's stop this thread and get back to whatever's
the IETF equivalent of "operational" discussion.
My point proven - the concerns are irrelevant these days among those
who feel they are most relevant over others which is ok, if there were
not security issues involved.
Part of "operational" design is to keep an open mind about all issues
related to a technology especially when new and there is a lack of
employment experience especially with the irrevalent. You must
incorporate existing experiences, including the usage of http
"OPTIONAL" standards, the operative word here is optional.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
srs
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Good point. But IMO, better metaphors might be:
- A car where the vendor no longer allows you to turn off the
radio or change the station (Force feeding commuter ADs).
- A car that still functions if the GPS was removed/disabled.
- DKIM-aware mail reader that requires you to use Javascript.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html