- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:59:06 -0700
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNf9d9Yh6dJNMV5kGsFbiBbus7Fu+AR6CjqokQkH7XXS6A@mail.gmail.com>
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