Similar to my recommendations on avoiding crystal ball arguments in designing SSP, I would like to encourage us to avoid arguing about SSP market demand. Again this thread from Dave and Arvel is a great illustration.
I think lots and lots of folks want strict/deny. (Of course I count myself among them so how's that for bias!) Dave and others think there is a small, non-Internet scale bunch that want it. There is no proof that Arvel and I am right. But I do think there are enough people making this argument that there is a credible, if unproven, need. I think we should err on meeting this possible need rather than disregarding this possible need. pat > > Contrast this with the view that this feature is quite > useful among a > > small, cooperative collection of services that have agreed > to use it. > > > > While this is not Internet scale -- by which I mean broad > adoption with > > massive breadth of use and no prior arrangement among the > users -- it is > > a perfectly credible capability, albeit one that needs to > be treated as > > a specialized facility, rather than a general one. > > I hope that I have completely misunderstood. > > The notion that we should embrace a plurality of closed, specialized, > and proprietary approaches to what should be an open industry > standard > freely available to all is antithetical to the IETF purpose (as I > understand that purpose) and is specifically contrary to what > we, as a > working group, are chartered to achieve. Therefore, it is > out of step > both with the spirit and the scope of our chartered work and should > simply be discarded upon that basis. > > Also, I can not stress this point enough: "specialized > facilities" (as > opposed to general ones) have a way of becoming entrenched > and remaining > specialized. This is not healthy for the larger community. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
