> for some applications, ACE will be needed for the next twenty years. Yes, this is why it is necessary for legacy support. It is not necessary for moving forward, and will actively interfere with progress. > we can't expect people to upgrade their applications en masse. > nor would this make good operational sense. We are expecting them to do it for ACE (so that it is usable anyway). We might as well let them move to recent state-of-the-art when they do it. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Adam M. Costello
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Edmon
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Eric A. Hall
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Eric A. Hall
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Eric A. Hall
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Eric A. Hall
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Adam M. Costello
- Re: [idn] Reality Check liana . ydisg
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Dan Oscarsson
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Adam M. Costello
- RE: [idn] Reality Check Brian W. Spolarich
- RE: [idn] Reality Check Rick H Wesson
- Re: [idn] Reality Check D. J. Bernstein
- Re: [idn] Reality Check Adam M. Costello
- RE: [idn] Reality Check Martin Duerst
- RE: [idn] Reality Check Russ Rolfe
