Re: sasl in beep or payload

> 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.

I'd characterize it somewhat differently.  

There are some who undrestand how difficult it will be to both specify and 
implement a protocol that requires multiple transactions over http in a way 
that works with the existing http infrastructure (servers, client libraries, 
caches, firewalls).  And there are some who don't.

Also, it's probably a mistake to claim that your former group isn't 
interested in sacred per se - the fact that they only speak up when they 
see a danger of a bad decision being made should not be taken as an 
indicator of a lack of interest in the technology. 

Keith