Re: sasl in beep or payload

Marshall, Dave,

> whether intentionally or not, he specifically disenfranchised the majority of the 
> folks in the room by limiting the sample set to those people actively planning 
> to implement.

The reason I did that was that there were a bunch of people in the room 
with very strong opinions but who, as far as I can tell, aren't interested 
in sacred per se, but *only* in the broader issues. I acknowledge that some 
of this group (yourselves and Keith included) do bring to bear some serious 
levels of experience. In any case, the "*only*" above, is the reason why I 
limited the poll at the meeting to implementors - we were, and still perhaps 
are, in serious danger that the "right thing in general", is the wrong thing
for those who want to implement, the downside being that we produce a lovely
proposed standard rfc, but no code.

Now, its of course fair enough to question this, particularly since you 
and Dave have made the arguable case (with which I don't agree, btw) that 
this particular issue prejudges the "multiple substrates" issue.

So - let's let the "sasl-in-beep" issue sleep for a bit and proceed with 
an explicit strawpoll on the "multiple substrates" issue (see earlier 
mail).

Stephen.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
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