Re: [psg.com #460] IESG - Transport - Oakley - new proposal (fwd)

[Damien Miller <djm%mindrot.org@localhost>]

Simon Tatham wrote:
> Niels Möller <nisse%lysator.liu.se@localhost> wrote:
> 
>>I think a lot of peple are silent. It's hard to tell if that's because
>>they agree, or don't care, or are all on vacation.
> 
> 
> I think any scheme would be perfectly adequate provided it was
> clearly defined what name went with which group, and clearly defined
> which groups implementors needed to support in the general case.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this is one of those situations in which
> the utilities of the various choices go something like:
> 
>  * choice A, ten points
>  * choice B, nine and a half points
>  * choice C, nine points
>  * long delay caused by debating the various options in detail,
>    minus one thousand points. :-)

Hear, hear. IMO the cost of having a slightly inconsistent group naming
convention (which we already agreed on) is much less than the cost of
deploying secsh yet again.

-d