Re: sasl in beep or payload

Dave,

Are you reading the text of the messages I send? Seems like
you're not. Well to make it clear, wrt sasl-in-beep, I said:

"If there are enough people unhappy with this, I'll start a 
straw poll on the list in a few days so we can sort it out."

So far, we've two people unhappy, as far as I can tell. Feel
free to send references to other postings that contradict 
this. When & if there's a bunch (particularly if they're from 
people who're interested in what sacred's trying to achieve!)
we'll do the strawpoll on the list.

You seem to think that I support changing the protocol to 
include sasl in the payload and I get the impression that
you've also guessed that I'd prefer to use http. Its 
interesting that you got that so wrong! In fact, I'd be
quite happy with sasl-in-beep, but am following what I 
see as the consensus.

You also seem to think that polling just those who'd 
implement sacred isn't valid. Well, in the case of 
where the sasl pdus are placed, I disagree, but would
of course welcome arguments to the contrary.

Finally, I think the use of terms like "self-serving" is 
entirely inappropriate and unjustified. Luckily (for me),
I'm happy to ignore such verbiage, but in future, I'd 
appreciate it if you'd stick to technical argument.

Stephen.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> At 04:12 PM 12/19/2001 +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >Well, I don't think so. A week ago I posted [1], and only Marshall (and
> >now you) seemed to differ from that. If others do, then I'd have hoped
> >they'd have spoken up by now.
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> The principle of having a chair declare a decision and wait for objections
> is well-established in the IETF.  However, to succeed, the use of the
> technique needs to have some basis in the recent history of the working
> group.
> 
> For example, it is not reasonable for a chair to literally ignore arguments
> they dislike and declare a decision that they DO like.
> 
> That you are both editor and chair, involving a matter of some controversy,
> is a point that needs to concern you a great deal.
> 
> As to the lack of response to your declaration, alternative explanations are:
> 
> 1.  Post-IETF syndrome.
> 
> 2.  Shock at the arbitrary (and frankly self-serving) declaration,
> resulting is a feeling that it is not worth commenting, since serious
> issues and serious points of view are going to be ignored by the chairs.
> 
> I'll also add that the reason I did not post anything earlier was that I
> sent my comments to the ADs, suggesting they fix the rather abherrent
> process that is clearly present in this working group.
> 
> > > In fact I seem to recall a presentation that argued for this re-use.
> >
> >Yes (and I liked your presentaion btw). There was also another one
> >(Magnus') calling for a quite different approach.
> 
> You appear to be offering that as an excuse for literally ignoring the
> presentation you did not like.
> 
> > > Please note that if the working group takes the very strong AD guidance to
> > > choose a single "transport" then there is no reason at all to create sasl
> > > integration into the application, unless the working group chooses a
> > > "transport" that does not already supply that functionality.
> >
> >I have some sympathy for this myself, but judging by the raised
> >hands, the consensus amongst those who'd implement sacred was to
> >include the sasl pdus in the payload.
> 
> I commend to you some study in survey research methodology and statistical
> sampling an analysis.
> 
> d/
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:[email protected]
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com