Re: RFC 2251 considered harmful

[Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>]

Leif,

My basic view is the critical extensions is good enginering, and should be
in the spec.

I accept Ed's point that some vendors will abuse this.  This definition of
abuse is subjective (although I suspect that Ed and I have a common view).
However, I think that having a protocol spec set out views on this sort of
thing would be a very dangerous precedent to set.  Protocol specs should
stick to protocol and stay out of marketing and commercial politics.

Steve


 >From:  Leif Johansson <leifj@matematik.su.se>
 >To:    Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
 >Subject: Re: RFC 2251 considered harmful 
 >Date:  Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:11:54 +0100

 >
 >
 >Hello Steve,
 >
 >I am fairly new to the ldap lists and have not spoken earlier.
 >However I now have a comment on your reply to Ed's comments.
 >
 >> As you point out, use of critical extensions does allow vendors a
 >> mechanism to lock in server choice.  However, such vendors would
 >> simply do the same using propietary mechanisms in any event.  All
 >> vendors like to achieve customer lock in, to increase sales.  Although
 >> I think that the mechanism is good, it will help some marketing
 >> departments to promote proprietary extensions as "open".
 >
 >I don't understand this argument. How does it follow from the fact
 >that vendors usually tend towards proprietary solutions that the
 >IETF must help them? Where would the web be if the W3C took this view
 >(and yes, one could argue that they have, lately done precisely this,
 >the effects of which could also be argued to be obvious)? Perhaps a 
 >"responsible uses of CRITICALity" document should be produced.
 >
 >
 >	Best Regards
 >
 >Leif Johansson				Phone: +46 8 164541		
 >Department of Mathematics		Fax  : +46 8 6126717		
 >Stockholm University 			email: leifj@matematik.su.se 	
 >
 >    <This space is left blank for quotational and disclamatory purposes.>
 >
 >
 >