Re: sasl in beep or payload

At 02:55 PM 12/21/2001 -0500, Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking 
wrote:
>Have to admit to being behind on sacred email, but it
>does seem that opinions of implementers should be most
>listened to,

Radia,

To be precise, the poll was of those who happened to be in the room and who 
purport to PLAN to implement sacred.  That does not mean they won't, but it 
means that the vote was a matter of intent rather than experience, as well 
as being a matter of an incredibly narrow and accidental sampling of 
implementors.

What do we do if they wind up NOT writing sacred code?  Do we recalculate?

And why is it that other implementors, who happen not to be planning (at 
this moment) to write sacred code, should be disenfranchised?

And why is it that those with extensive protocol design experience should 
be disenfranchised?

Survey research is a very specialized art.  And selective sampling is 
extremely difficult and dangerous.  In the IETF we are particularly poor at 
doing it correctly.

d/

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