Actually this is more of a general comment that it is big enough that using it as an excuse to not include something isn't really a valid reason. (Most of the things I personally view as cruft (mandatory TLS, for example) were, unfortunately, WG decisions, so no point in my complaining again)
My point is more that you saying "you don't like cruft" is not a very well articulated reason to not include a 16 bit field in an already 141 page document. I think we have included enough that, this looks to me as useful as many other things in the draft, and I personally support it. David (as individual) Sent from my mobile device -----Original Message----- From: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:38:37 To: <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Rescorla<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; Narayanan, Vidya<[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Client operation in RELOAD At Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:51:52 +0000, David A. Bryan wrote: > There is already a bit of cruft here and there in the protocol (my > personal take is that it is a bit too heavy in current form), but > this actually looks useful to me, so for now, I'm behind the idea of > adding it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is really a not very useful complaint. If you think the protocol has too much cruft, how about identifying some bloat and explaining how to remove it? -Ekr _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
