Yakov wrote:
What about the scope idea itself? Do you agree with it?
Yakov,
My own view is that the scope idea looks like a bit of a get out for the WG
because it removes the necessity to specify a single definitive identity
and a single definitive algorithm for identifying it.
Real life tends to weaken this argument by demonstrating time and again
that any definitive identity and its accurate determination already is a
moving target.
"Scope" which implements extensibility, is therfore a reasonable
future-proofing precaution, but we ought to take care that we don't use it
as an excuse for avoiding the difficult issue.
One (or more) initial madatory scope(s) would satisfy my desire to see that
the specification as published be implementable without external refrence,
and more importantly without contact (direct or indirect) between
implementors being required for satisfactory interoperability. Surely this
is the whole point of interoperability RFC's, and something which is lost
if we first have to find out what scopes a recipient checks before we can
send them mail.
Leaving scope as extensible will allow those who follow to spend more time
analysing and defining and evolving the truly sucessful scopes which this
proposal requires in order to be sucessful. In the fullness of time perhaps
one of these scopes could form the basis for the next generation of this
work, by being both mandatory and effective.
d.
Danny Angus
http://james.apache.org
***************************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s)
only. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the
message to the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306
2050 and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it
or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications
are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept
any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For
this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in
an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans
Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for
viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and
views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the
opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
**************************************************************************