Hiya,

On 29/06/17 14:02, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> While I understand and sympathise with Viktor's argument
>> for kv, I don't think that argument ought be blocking as
>> the differences seem to me to mostly relate to the sets
>> of libraries already linked to mta implementations, which
>> doesn't seem to me like a winning argument, as ymmv.
> 
> The point is not so much about this or that library, but about
> needless complexity and bloat.  JSON, XML, ASN.1, ... are much
> too general and complex for the task at hand.

The library point is relevant because some people
will already have json support, at which point there
is no additional complexity, for them. (That said, I've
always been neutral in religious debates about data
definition language fashions, but do realise that a
lot of people have much stronger feelings. In any
case, the use of terms like "bloat" etc doesn't
convince me of anything:-)

> Good engineering is about making things as simple as possible
> (and no simpler), and JSON fails the test.  It is, and remains,
> entirely unnecessary for STS.

I don't see any new argument there. In fact, it
seems like a pretty old, worn out and overly generic
argument to me;-)

> 
> BTW, I did suggest a few candidate KV encodings upthread.

Given that it seems nobody else is jumping on board
with that, maybe now it's time to just move on?

Having spoken with the folks behind this spec, I am
very sure that above all else they want to get done
and are finding the lack of closure on this particular
aspect very very frustrating. And all the moreso as
they would've happily used kv if that were the clear
consensus. As-is, they have come and some deployment
with the json stuff (IIUC), so ISTM that in the
absence of any spec'd out alternative the right thing
for the WG to do is clear. (Even if it's a pity that
that right thing is not what you'd chose for postfix.)

Cheers,
S.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

Reply via email to