On 2/3/2024 1:54 PM, John R Levine wrote:
It occurs to me that Dave and I have different views of how software
is put together.
John, Thanks for the effort at saying I'm out of date. Very subtle.
But you've been diligently missing the distinction I've made between
software architecture and networking standards architecture.
There is a networking architecture standard that distinguishes UA from
MTA (among other components.)
Yet one is not required to have two separate modules. There might be
two, or more, or only one.
You keep ignoring this distinction, conflating software design with
standards architectures.
Ironically, the UA/MTA standards architecture distinction dates all the
way back to 1980 and was based on four existing systems. DEC's, PARC's,
Sendmail and MMDF. But there were many other systems that were fully
integrated, including the one we developed at Rand, a few years earlier.
As for pragmatism, constraining a standards architecture too much
removes implementation choices. It also can creates unnecessary
complexity and maintenance challenges.
You might recall from my previous note that I cited maintenance issues.
Was that not sufficiently pragmatic? I can't tell, because again, you
ignored it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
