Re: let's move on

[Andrew Wilson <a.wilson@elsevier.co.uk>]

One concern re cords:

The order in which fields appear in a cord message is important, a
condition which is not true for any other MCP message.  Spec should say
that cords are the odd man out and their implementation requires a
fixed field order, and that perhaps in addition no other MCP message is
permitted to have a fixed field order.

Ay.

Dave Kormann:
> 
> erik makes a good point; i think we're pretty close to release (sorry
> i've been so silent lately.  anyway.)  i see there being two vaguely
> controversial issues in the current spec: authkeys and cords.  in both
> cases, i'd prefer to have them in, in something approximating their
> current form, but i'm not at all married to that position, and could
> be pretty easily swayed (especially in the case of authkeys).  there's
> also quoting, which i'll deal with in a separate message.
> 
> i know i'd said previously i was going to ditch authkeys; however, jay
> expressed pretty serious objections to that (though he never justified
> the objections).  basically, i'm going to take the attitude at this
> point that unless someone has a strong, supported objection to some
> portion of the spec, it stays.
> 
> so, after that ramble, any strong objections to any part of the spec
> as it stands (besides quoting, which i'll post on nexxt).