|
> Maybe I don’t understand the sentence. I
interpret it to mean that if the
> default value is acceptable to me then not
offering it is somehow different
> than the default … and that confuses me
(well, actually it makes me wonder
> if the sentence is trying to say something
else).
Here are two
examples of how it's different:
(1) If for
some reason the other party doesn't have the
same default (bugs
happen), negotiation should drive
both
parties to an agreed value, but in the absence
of
negotiation, the other party might do something
different.
Moral: if a key value is
important, it MUST be negotiated.
This is a little weaker than Luben's
statement that
all keys always have to
be negotiated. That strength
was never intended.
(2) If the
other party wants to negotiate the value and
both offer the same default value,
not offering the default
results in an additional step before
the negotiation can
conclude, viz:
-> Nothing
-> Key=Default
<- Key=Default
<- Key=Default
->
Key=Default
--David
| 