Re: [ietf-provreg] Our "Privacy Issue"

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Ed,

Let's get this bit out of the way.

> >I wasn't thrilled with the congestion issue either, or the ordering issue,
> >but those are damp spots under prior bridges.
> 
> I suppose you are referring in some way to the statement that we 
> aren't pursuing SMTP or other transports over TCP (or other 
> transports at all).

No. It isn't about what documents the WG pursues. Its about the way
that session semantics crept in, and in a more exclusive form than
any contributor to the WG reqested, either during the reqs period,
or during the incremental deltas from -02 to -06.

I wrote about this at length.

Why does a stream of <check coat> <check bar> <check hat> <check bar>
<check scotch> <check ice> <check bar> <check scotch> <check scotch>
<check scotch> <check scotch> <check floor> have to be strictly ordered?

I don't know. It is worth a drink.

Now this may not be what everyone, or even anyone, wants to do, but to
discover in the ratrace of speculative gTLD operational art, some new
_universal_ requirement that ordering must be preserved, even for some
EPP-for-penguins deployment, is odd.

Then there's the got-to-have-it-now problem, or why order preserving
semantics aren't strong enough, they must be connectionist too. Bye
bye email.

Under the guiding light of the IESG we've gone from a protocol to a
rather narrower operational market in the guise of a protocol.

Believe me, I'm much happier with my drafts poking along dorkily to
dorkimental. But these are edge cases. Transport thingies. Brunner's
bad ideas.

The issue before the WG today is the common syntax. Existance, or not.
With that I'll go back to your note.

Eric