Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>speculate on the reasons why 'heavy' standards are not widely used. It's an observed fact. First I don't believe that as we have successfully deployed many "heavy" standards along with other companies.Success of one or more companies deploying anything is not an indicator of wide adoption. This is particularly true for larger companies, which tend to deploy pretty much everything somewhere, though not necessarily widely even within that company. By any measure, the current crop of extranet "identity" protocols cannot be said to be deployed widely. My gut tells me that even those that are deployed at all don't see much in the way of extranet action. Which, after all, was the only "problem" that didn't already have abundant and adequate solutions, nobody needed those protocols for logging into the intranet portal.
I think the underlying issue here is who doesn't have what they need, why is it they don't have it, and do we care to solve that problem? The contention is that individual web users and web sites do not have what they need because what is available standards-wise is too complex to be developed widely or to deploy widely, particularly in the smaller scale operation. Clearly some want to solve that problem.
Also there are many factors that can play in "heavy" standards, the amount of code is one of them but not the most important factor. We see "heavy" as being very complex, and not consumable, and these 2 characteristic could fall into other's "Lightness".u
I prefer the term "simple", then everyone can agree what it means. -- Pete
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
