Re: sasl in beep or payload

At 12:40 PM 12/21/2001 +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>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,

First of all, I appreciate the intent and particular detail of your 
note.  And  -- remembering that we all are pretending I did not make a 
personal slip in one note -- please understand that the focus on sampling 
was to explain why it was not an adequate sample, rather than a focus on 
anyone's intent.  If anything, this exchange shows how difficult it can be 
to "engineer" tailored good sampling.

As to the strawpoll, the problem is that we are jumping to a decision phase 
before there is a clear understanding of the problem to solve.  That is, 
the first question is WHY there should be multiple substrates?

What problem is solved by supporting multiple substrates?  Will it really 
be solved?  Are the reasons realistic and compelling?  Do they outweigh the 
costs?

And then there is the small matter of the concerns that have been raised 
about them.  (Remember my clever example about a consensus for world peace.)

At the meeting, these questions received responses, but there is no 
indication that they were generally understood or why anyone might have 
chosen to reject them.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464