--- Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Ned and Mark,
I am not understanding what specific, technical change to the current spec is
being suggested.
If I can paraphrase, Ned doesn't like c=simple, I do.
I don't know whether Ned is of the view that it *should* be excised or whether
it can be re-cast to alleviate his concerns in terms of defaults, advice to
implementers, nomenclature implications and so on.
Perhaps it's my background in seeing the creativity and efforts of commercially
oriented abusers but I for one do not completely trust *any* wriggle-room in
content. I understand the realities of the infrastructure, but nonetheless I
get very nervous about the overlap between survivability and risk. IOW, I don't
want a deployment that doesn't offer a no-risk option - even though it has
problems in the current infrastructure.
FWIW. What I've seen in the ten or so DK implementations, is that implementers
have had no trouble choosing between the two and in deployment the use of
c=simple has been very selective. On the receiving side, we simply haven't seen
a high rate of c=simple deployment which could incur the wide-scale
disappointment that Ned is worried about.
Mark.