Re: We don't need RSD

[Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This discussion isn't helping.

* Joe's spec is on a server that he controls.  That particular server 
has been known to become inaccessible from time to time.  That spec has 
yet to be submitted to a standards body.  Yet, we presume that all this 
can change.  The same courtesy should apply to Daniel, and his spec.

* Joe's spec is simply that: Joe's spec.  People have been specifically 
encouraged to produce XML-RPC and SOAP specs.  Anybody can produce an 
alternate REST spec.

* The topic of 'back channels' comes up frequently in both open source 
and standards process.  I've never been to Joe's house, but Mark has.  I 
presume that he will continue to do so.  And topics that are of mutual 
interest are bound to come up.  This can't be legislated against. 
What's important is that no final decisions are made 'offline'.  And 
that means are provided for everyone to participate.  Means like this 
mailing list.  And the wiki.  And IRC (check out #echo sometime - I'm 
there now).

* When RSD was under active development, I provided input.  If I recall 
correctly, not everything I suggested was accepted.  But the most 
important input was.  Daniel was eminently reasonable in that process. 
And I seriously doubt that he could say that RSD was developed with *no* 
offline discussion.  I know of no such discussions; however it is my 
experience that nothing is ever developed in a vacuum.

 = = = =

None of the above goes directly to the point as to whether RSD should be 
'in' or 'out.  I don't have a specific opinion on that at this time. 
Let's get some implementation experience - both large and small, before 
we make any final decisions.

- Sam Ruby