Re: Requesting comments on draft-cheney-safe-02.txt

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Cheney, Edward A SSG RES USAR USARC wrote:

> John,
> 
> This has become an absolutely horrific experience that has long since
> left the field of argument.  I believe I am certainly coming away with
> less than I have originally began with and simultaneously nothing has
> benefited the IETF.  Some of the persons here have been quite helpful
> asking questions about the relevance of the idea or criticizing the
> langauge in the draft.  At the same others seem more interested in some
> unspoken self-interest that has nothing to do with the technical merits
> of my idea, this process, or the IETF.


You know that isn't true. And its really an unfair statement. I 
honestly held back my true feelings for which I am glad John stated 
very adequately.

Namely, the only obvious self interest here was your own proposal and 
statements to the effect that the industry will fail if they don't 
adopt your specific implementation for a web based SMTP client which 
by your own claims has patent pending ideas.  Your approach was there 
is NO ARGUMENT AGAINST IT because  the technology is sound, therefore 
it must be a standard and it must be adopted.   You said that quite a 
few times.

I provided my side that:

  - DOM EVENT is important

You indicated they are not allowed,  YET, if one reviews your 
document, it is entirely based on DOM and AJAX methods. I don't think 
you can have it both ways.  Your proposal REQUIRES AJAX.  So here is 
an highly subjective position that suggest don't use an HTTP based 
call, use a SMTP-based call instead for AJAX.

  - There are major strategies for WEB 2.0

You chose to ignore the business interest and suggested it doesn't 
play a role in deciding what technologies to adopt.  Instead, you went 
to to suggest, they are doom to fail if they don't adopt your methods.

You made claims that not adopting SAFE will cost businesses livelihood 
and may go out of business.

You made claims that XML formatted mail does not exist. Not true.

It was quite obvious that you were focused on a specific product model 
which you though was better. I'm glad John highlighted this errant 
approach of yours.

> The respect for the process I once held on such high esteem is waning as
> I have been handed a rather bitter experience.  I do understand this
> experience is likely not representative of the norm or the majority of
> individuals who commonly contribute.  Even though, if a proposed idea is
> so unpopular that if demands the technology be ignored in favor of
> future postulations and personal criticisms then something has gone very
> badly and something in the process has broken.

You choose to insist that there would be no compromise to your 
proposal. No DOM events - period!  You choose to ignore that this 
would be a major show stopper for me and that major javascript API 
developers would be affected by your proposal.

That is now how the group works. You need to compromise.  You had 
three strikes - no dom events, patent pending features and a complex 
solution to a problem that has less costly solutions.  If you can't 
accept these criticism, I am not the blame for any of this.  If it 
wasn't me, someone else would of eventually highlighted.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com