Re: Asynchronous BEEP draft status

-1

I am unconvinced of the value of this draft, for three reasons:

a - This draft describes how to build into BEEP something you can
already do with BEEP (several ways).

I can write a trivial example using vortex that implements the
motivating use-case for those unconvinced.

b - BEEP adoption suffers from perceived complexity.

I don't personally think it is more complex than it has to be, but it
would be better to document how to use what it offers than to extend
it.

c - BEEP adoption suffers from non-interoperability of existing toolkits.

If implementors are already not writing interoperable toolkits when
implementing the existing RFC3080/3081, optional extensions are going
to make this situation worse.

Cheers,
Sam