At 6:56 AM -0800 2/9/97, Jeff Williams wrote: >It jsut seems to me that additional ports are just not >necessary and a bad idea long term. I understand the >time element for some projects. I just feel that it is a bad >trade off. Sets a bad precident. I disagree -- we are setting a good precedent. Before now anyone could just ask for an SSL port, a number of people have done so (including X.Cert, who requested SSL-LDAP and yet is one of the people complaining here!), and the ports have been issued by the IANA. Now we are saying "let's make sure that at least two different companies are committed to doing this" and "we know there is a long term problem here and we have to address it soon". Both I feel are good precedent. I have no problem raising the bar a little -- maybe requiring that there are three rather than two companies committed to using the ports, or requiring that their names must be public. But forcing the companies to go proprietary or ad hoc use of ports is not a good short term decision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..Christopher Allen Consensus Development Corporation.. ..<ChristopherA@consensus.com> 1563 Solano Avenue #355.. .. Berkeley, CA 94707-2116.. ..Home of "SSL Plus: o510/559-1500 f510/559-1505.. .. SSL 3.0 Integration Suite(tm)" <http://www.consensus.com/SSLPlus/>..Received on Sunday, 9 February 1997 18:05:52 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:34:59 EDT