W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:59:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNf9d9Yh6dJNMV5kGsFbiBbus7Fu+AR6CjqokQkH7XXS6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
To me, it seems like "violent agreement" :)

In your example case, the deployment of more passwords == more crap.
That would imply that it is of immense importance to have a replacement
deployed yesterday, else the current practice becomes increasingly wide
spread...

-=R


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>wrote:

>
> Not really on topic for this but...
>
> On 09/04/2013 01:35 AM, Roberto Peon wrote:
> > Deployed is the most important feature
>
> No. "A very important" feature, yes. "The" most
> important, no, not in all cases.
>
> To take one example:
>
> Passwords are by far the most commonly deployed
> web user authentication mechanism. That is only
> because we believe we lack a better solution and
> is a crap situation that gets more crap the more
> that passwords are deployed. In that case, more
> deployment == more crap.
>
> And maybe I'm wrong, but I mostly seem to hear the
> deployment-is-all argument from folks with existing
> large deployments, which of course makes it a
> suspiciously self-serving argument. That is no
> criticism of the people making that argument, e.g.
> I have eventually realised how often I've fallen
> into similar traps myself. But its still notable.
>
> S.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 01:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC