- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 23:21:45 PST
- To: Andre van der Hoek <andre@bigtime.cs.colorado.edu>
- CC: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Andre van der Hoek wrote: > I believe that is due to the road taken in this approach. Larry pointed this > out in an earlier message: the road taken was one where everything is > discoverable and everything is interoperable, that is an undauntly difficult > task. The alternative taken now is to limit the spec to a small number of > policies, which I believe is a mistake and underestimate of the difficulties > that arise. In my earlier message I pointed out a situation that for example > needs to be addressed (non-locking + locking policy interoperating). I think > that the same problems as before will show up, slightly smaller scale, but > certainly as hairy. Therefore I am advocating the different approach, also > laid out by Larry: provide a generic infrastructure to build policies on top > of. The current spec is actually pretty close to providing such an > infrastructure, and I believe that eventually in the end this will be the road > that will be taken and the road that will be more succesfull. Summary: I > believe that by scaling down the number of policies the spec does not become > significantly easier, the same old hairy discovery and interoperability issues > remain. > > Do others have any opinions about all of the above? We asked the editing group to try to improve interoperability, even if it meant limiting flexibility. Limiting flexiblity isn't a goal. It's hard to have design arguments about motherhood and apple pie, though. We're just floundering until we have a new proposal to look at, unless we want to go back to Ohta-san's internet draft. Larry
Received on Sunday, 16 March 1997 02:59:21 UTC