complexity and #$#text-line

[Dave Kormann <davek@research.att.com>]

 > May I urge people to really really keep it simple, very very
 > simple? This needs to get out as soon as possible, and I very
 > much liked the original spirit of putting in as little as
 > possible. Lets stick to that.

i think in light of this comment i should clarify my feelings on the
text-line idea (which seems an area where we're on the verge of adding
more syntactic complexity), in order:

my first preference: we don't include it, and we wait to have a
protocol that does it.  this really seems like an area where a
separate protocol would work just fine.

second preference: we include it as a protocol on the level of
cords: recommended but not required.

third preference: it goes in the spec proper.

i guess my objections to this are twofold: first, it seems like
optimizing the spec to permit one (small) possible parser
improvement.  second, inband text is ALREADY legal on an MCP
connection, and your parser is perfectly free to treat such text as a
special case of an mcp message, just without a '#$#' at the
beginning.  heck, if you really want to have everything look like mcp,
you can prefix every incoming line that doesn't have a '#$#' with
'#$#text-line auth-key text:' before it gets to the parser.  nothing
about mcp stops you from doing this.

i'm not at all dead set against this, and if there's general feeling
it's a good idea, i'll be happy to add it, so don't take this rant as
anything more than me trying to make clear why i have a problem with
this...
				dk