ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
> Instead, we're engaged in the
> time-honored IETF practice of letting the unattainable best be the
mortal enemy
> of the good enough.
Please explain. What is "good enough"?
There are numerous examples. To pick one of the more recent: The unattainable
goal was to define a whole-message signature scheme that can be used end to
end, where the middle includes things like mailing list processors. Good
enough
is to instead specify a scheme that works for "long hops" but is not intended
(and in fact explicitly excludes) end to end use.
I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: what
problem does that solve? "Good enough" that doesn't
solve real world problems is not "good" or "enough".
Mike