IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Jack Moffitt <jack@collecta.com> Tue, 20 July 2010 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <metajack@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854A63A6959 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t8rT-jAvKauO for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C9C3A693B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so1170577vws.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D2bqpwON6zH7Fi8F/75RBh3oTRZqaEqh2sU9DG+Ja6A=; b=pWBwNJ1b6a+64+8qQ4or1z1IHMN50DveSK2JXlgCxT58Hx/R6ryYXaGtQMYH07Jzjh 23x4AEHpHqQsltgq/3hWJiHpifGr4dnQrgnRDn1fILksWD7Ld5A+QMhSoHfG15sA1E70 mR+vTkQScWUEi/cAUrspF10cB4NNPHI4yHMS4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=IeCwuMLLc/Y/4f4s9kDdUKDLWplUeAltHfMXPwtQFB34U3E3Gkt3iCfspsxOKxfxmZ wWBi8bg0yso1Q+AKCdcmKwiHgvkc6CHcnT/8fPQTMoF1Ll6KkMcgXs1laiaud/VLxJJf FpwC0cBIezZOf/v9VsKpxziZ/eKbC7ixi2eDY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.59.195 with SMTP id m3mr6516304qah.34.1279667785933; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: metajack@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.74.7 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikkfdlUxQ0MGNvVQKa5gfovkGHWdCgyN9juKSQJ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.com> <4BCAB2C1.2000404@webtide.com> <B9DC25B0-CD21-44E7-BD9B-06D0C9440933@apple.com> <4BCB7829.9010204@caucho.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004182349240.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC0A07.9030003@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190753510.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC111C.90707@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190837570.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC204D.30004@gmx.de> <z2gad99d8ce1004190822ne4dd36b6v54d63efcc448e840@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007202204270.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <AANLkTikkfdlUxQ0MGNvVQKa5gfovkGHWdCgyN9juKSQJ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:16:25 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -73uUAEOzWJP-PEIa1BU7iKipks
Message-ID: <AANLkTikuPkPWNp9E0RiwoJGxHYTd1edUaEYUFUOn3DX1@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jack Moffitt <jack@collecta.com>
To: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:16:12 -0000

> Every protocol expert I've spoken with agrees that amateur protocol
> implementors should not be a requirement.
> Is there some way we can vote to either keep or nullify this requirement now
> and never come back to it again?  I'm tired of this obstacle holding
> everything up.

It seems to me that any protocol that requires security is already
outside the reach of amateur developers without library support.  If
they must rely on libraries written by professionals for security, why
is it so bizarre to ask them to rely on libraries for other functions
that are also complex and hairy?

I think this is getting at the root of the issues. We either need to
strike this requirement or give it some concrete meaning. As I'm not
sure such meaning can be easily provided, striking the 'amateur
programmer' requirement seems prudent.

jack.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email