Re: Loops (RE: CPIM changes)

Adam,


Friday, November 15, 2002, 4:03:32 PM, you wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email protected]]
>>
>> The group of nine was commissioned to specify a common 
>> gateway semantic. That is all. Not a protocol. Not a content
>> syntax. But rather the minimum acceptable gateway
>> functionality that could pass muster among the group of nine.

Adam> Huh. Derek's presentation to IPMM at the time [1] seemed to
Adam> indicate otherwise.

Whereas I think that the Introductory language in the original CPIM document
is straightforward and clear:

----- [ ]
The parameters for each operation are defined using an abstract
syntax. Although the syntax specifies the range of possible data values,
each IM service must specify how well-formed instances of the abstract
representation are encoded as a concrete series of bits.
-----

Adam> These reversible-syntax-transformation transitions do not
Adam> fit the definition of heterogeneous gateways that has been
Adam> discussed recently. It's not like transforming from DECmail
Adam> to SMTP; it's more like sending SMTP through a gateway that
Adam> compresses it.

if you try to standardize every syntactic entity on both sides, you are
right.

that's not what we did.  it is the reason it was so important to agree only
on a minimal set.

Again, what you are saying all sounds quite reasonable.  The only problem is
that it is not what was being done then.  As I noted, the failure to
recharter the group makes it not at all surprising that the task was
interpreted differentially.

Note, for example, that Derek's presentation imparts intent about security
that is specifically not supported by the I-D draft language.

d/
-- 
 Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
 TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]