W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft (Warning: Rant Enclo sed)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:03:01 PST
Message-Id: <332F9DB5.5C3C@parc.xerox.com>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Yaron,

Please save your ranting for alt.bash.evil-empire.

If we weren't engaged in social engineering, we wouldn't have
a requirement for a "security considerations" section. 

You are completely free to implement whatever the market
lets you get away with implementing, and the IETF has no
way to control it. It's only if you want the IETF as whole
to endorse the protocol that you want to implement as 
an "internet standard" that you have to put up with the pain
of actually considering those things which are established
as IETF priorities. This does not include "Your product must not
crash, EVER, ohh and yeah, it has to run on LINUX" (although
neither of those would be bad ideas), but it does include
being careful to consider the issues of security, privacy,
effect on the overall operation of the internet, 
internationalization, even when those are not clearly
within your current short-term market horizin.

No one has anything with which to bash the head of any browser
maker. This is a consensus process. If the browser makers
don't go along, well, then we can have either a different
standard or no standard. It's really up to you. But this is
not a free-market economy model, winner-take-all. This is
a consensus model. Convince us that you're right. Ranting
is not a useful method of convincing anyone.

-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 1997 00:05:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:31 EDT