Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Fri, 01 April 2011 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A313A6864 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 tu3-kzkoEUtt for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep11.mx.upcmail.net (fep11.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E063A6845 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge05.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.212]) by viefep11-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20110401142717.EXMH17007.viefep11-int.chello.at@edge05.upcmail.net> for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:27:17 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge05.upcmail.net with edge id SETF1g02j0FlQed05ETGqV; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:27:17 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1Q5fJj-0005V9-M6 for vwrap@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:27:15 +0200
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:27:15 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110401162715.4fd05aa5@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1301502034.12359.19.camel@mdickson-hplinux>
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD92FDE22F3F@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <AANLkTimaA3qcKOUUjQzvq86R1UMvamTc4yJh4NBMp_Gq@mail.gmail.com> <1301499645.12359.10.camel@mdickson-hplinux> <4D93620C.3000505@gmail.com> <1301502034.12359.19.camel@mdickson-hplinux>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=kRmApA04uPli/d8B8u1M0swu98hronvs6VvAqI8uQP0= c=1 sm=0 a=SNAFxGGoWQUA:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=cH6R9-kdAAAA:8 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=ufDrww6TrNQOCB74D2EA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=bt0zGP92IBIA:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=Kfufhcu0ff01f_SH:21 a=w0rG9CKMNLKLGuAQ:21 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:25:39 -0000

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:20:34 -0400
Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:

> Yes, and I'm saying I'm not going to agree that flexibility is *the*
> most important guiding principle over other factors like
> compatibility. That was the original assertion (that we should agree
> that flexibility is most important).

You really misunderstood the intention (so maybe there is still hope).

The statement: protocol B can do everything that protocol A can do
completely eliminates this extra flexibility override ANYTHING.

You seem to fear that "flexibility" is going to be "more important"
than something else and "push something else aside". But that is not
the case: the whole point is to not do what makes no sense (read
that again).

And in my eyes, it makes no sense to not add support to the protocol
for X when that has not a single disadvantage.

Then when it has a tiny little disadvantage; like you need to spend
5 minutes to think about it and it will add a chapter to the documents
that you'll have to skip when reading it, or even you need to write
10 extra code lines to deal with procotol commands that you won't
implement... then why want to deny all that to those who DO need it?
That still makes no sense.

I'm not trying to force anything specifically upon you. Not at all.
I'm trying to reason something that is just pure logic imho.
  
I had not expected that anyone would have had ALREADY a problem
with the very first, almost trivial logical proposal for consensus :(

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>