--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
<simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a
>> proposal is made I hear the complexity argument used against
>> it. Everything we do is complex. Computers are complex.
>> Committee process usually increases complexity somewhat.
>>
>> If an argument can always be used what is the discrimination
>> power?
>
> How about using answers to the question "Is this complexity
> needed?" as a discriminator?
>
> Sometimes, there is no better solution than one with certain
> complexity. That isn't inherently bad.
>
> I'm not sure the need for this particular complex solution was
> demonstrated. I don't recall anyone defending it. The
> experimental track thus seems appropriate, if it should be
> published at all.
But that was precisely where the other thread, if I recall, came
out. It wasn't an argument against complexity. It was an
argument about introducing another optional way of doing things
because we _know_ that many options lead to worse
interoperability. And it was a suggestion/ request that, before
this document was published in _any_ form, that it at least
acquire a clear discussion as to when one would select this form
over the well-established ASN.1 form for which there is existing
deployment, existing tools, etc. Put differently, we all know
that this _can_ be done but, if there is another solution
already out there, widely deployed, and in active use, a clear
explanation about _why_ it should be done and under what
circumstances it is expected to useful is in order.
That suggestion about an explanation was a specific request
about the document, not idle theorizing about the character of
ASN.1 or the nature of complexity.
And, again, pretending that the discussion didn't occur
impresses me as a little strange.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf