From: Jeff Bone (jbone@jump.net)
Date: Fri Mar 17 2000 - 10:16:08 PST
Larry Masinter wrote:
> Me:
>
> > > "Running code" is necessary but not sufficient.
> > >
> >
> > False. Running code is necessary and sufficient. Proof statements:
> > AOL, ICQ, Shoutcast, Napster. Running code, interoperating, from
> > multiple implementors, is all of: desirable, necessary and sufficient.
>
> Well, a couple of things. First, you mention a couple of things
> beyond "running code", such as "interoperating" and "from multiple
> implementors". And I'm not sure that the AOL situation is "desirable":
> is it really reasonable that you only get to interoperate with AOL
> if you sign a licensing agreement with them? So that, for example,
> FaceTime can write an AOL client, but Microsoft and Yahoo and Mitre
> can't? This is "desirable"? and "sufficient"?
>
No no... didn't mean to imply that the proof statements: sentence had
anything to do with the next sentence. Sort of "Running code is necessary
and sufficient. Running code, interoperating, from multiple vendors, is
*even better* if you can get it.
>
> Now, go into your AOL IM client, click on "setup", and then "Connection"
> and then on "auto-configure". Now imagine running that (as I do) on
> a laptop that is variously plugged into different networks with
> different firewall and proxy configurations. Now, tell me that this
> is "desirable" from an interoperability point of view.
>
> If there were a standard for Instant Messaging and some analysis that
> it wasn't an enormous security hole (as IRC seems to have been from
> time to time), then the firewall administrators might actually turn
> it on.
>
> Convincing all of the firewall administrators and network managers
> requires more than running code. Getting services actually deployed
> widely requires convincing them.
>
> Running code is necessary but not sufficient. It actually has to work
> in a wider variety of circumstances than you can cook up in your
> testing, and work stably, uniformly, and reliably. To get that requires
> at least rough consensus that your application need is worthy, not
> just the opinion of the area director.
>
> > Convincing e.g. Keith Moore (sp? lazy. My former roommate? Dunno.)
> > (pick your IETF AD) that your application need is "worthy" is neither
> > necessary nor sufficient.
>
> An odd strawman; you must be confused about the nature of the process.
>
Oh, that's just me being a kidder. ;-)
> Convincing the IETF AD that your application is "worthy" is neither
> necessary nor sufficient, but you're playing the wrong game.
>
> > $0.03 (inflation)
> >
> > jb
>
> hmmmm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 10:22:32 PST