Mark Delany wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:10:36PM -0800, Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote:
Barry Leiba <leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment of these
specifications, the DKIM working group will make every reasonable attempt to
keep changes compatible with what is deployed, making incompatible changes
only when they are necessary for the success of the specifications.
I'm generally comfortable with this charter, but not really with this.
"necessary for the success of the specifications" seems like a very
high bar to clear. While I appreciate that there's a desire by many members
of the WG to avoid making incompatible changes (hence this language),
to the extent to which that desire reflects consensus, those
changes won't be made anyway. I don't believe it's appropriate to
rule discussion of changes which might be important but not
"necesssary" out of scope in the charter.
That sounds reasonable.
Is the wording "the DKIM working group will make every reasonable
attempt to keep changes compatible" not tacit acknowledgement that
incompatible changes are possible and within scope?
I guess your concern is how high the bar is to change. Does the
charter make it too high or practically impossible, in your view? If
so, what changes do you suggest that alleviate those concerns?
I guess I tend to agree with Mark here. But, if you want to
suggest a better wording then please do so and we can see if
its believed to be an innocuous change or not.
PS: I think that the current phrasing does represent a significant
change since Paris, so its not really fair to say that the unease
expressed there still applies. I didn't hear that specific criticism
at the meeting in Vancouver either. But of course, that doesn't
say anything about whether or not the current text is the best we
ietf-dkim mailing list