At 9:24 AM -0800 03/13/2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Then you are in the wrong place.
The argument that 'this was already decided elsewhere' has zero
credibility.
Pointers to previous work done an issue, as you have done
with SAML, though, are appropriate ways to ensure that the
group does not get bogged down in issues that have been
carefully considered elsewhere. If Gordon's point is that
others have considered a "rights" based view of this
(rather than a contracts based view, for example), then
asking him to provide more detail on the pointer is
appropriate.
Unless there is an engineering reason for making the distinction,
though, I believe we are off topic. When raising a point in
philosophical terms, I would appreciate mailing list participants
making explicit *how it affects the engineering*. Doing
so early on, in clear terms, and with constant reference to
the engineering needs is very useful; leaving it out is
not and can contribute to mailing list noise that hinders
progress.
Instead of answering legitimate issues
you attack the question. It is terribly unpatriotic of you to
attempt tactics of this kind, it only gives encouragement to
the enemies of this country.
The IETF is an international organization, and statements like
that above are not appropriate in this venue.
We are trying to develop an engineering specification here,
and it is discussion of the engineering issues, rather than
philosophy or motivations, will help move us forward.
<engineering discussion of why "receiver's choice" processing
is more effective omitted here, but present in the original>
regards,
Ted Hardie