Hello Bruce.
>> The question is what should be put in the protocol, and I would tend to
>> think that some careful design time should be put in it.
>
> I still don't see the value of this vs. its complexity.
Dunno. I'm looking for the value of having such a thing in core.
ISTM that there are no clear design goals of the system, no clear
description of the target use case(s), no clear explanations of the
underlying choices (in something like a README), no saying what it
achieves and what it does not achieve. It is only code.
If the proposed thing is very specific to one use case, which may be more
or less particular, then I'd say the stuff should really be an external
extension, and you do not need to ask for a review. Call it pgcryptoXYZ
and it is done.
However, if the stuff is amenable to many/more use cases, then it may
still be an extension because it is specialized somehow and not everyone
would like to have it if they do not use it, but having it in core would
be much more justified. Also, it would have to be a little more "complex"
to be extensible, sure. I do not think that it needs to be very complex in
the end, but it needs to be carefully designed to be extensible.
Note I still do not see why it should be in core directly, i.e. not an
extension. I'm yet to see a convincing argument about that.
--
Fabien.
