On Oct 15, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
newest Draft Charter:
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.
versus
Stephen:
   I don't believe there is a
requirement for the dkim standard protocol to be backwards
compatible on-the-wire with what's deployed today, but rather
that the dkim standard be such that it's not a problem to migrate
from today's deployments or perhaps even to run them in parallel.
Folks have been expressing support for the new charter text.  I'm  
inclined not to perturb that, but have a continuing concern that  
forces me to probe one issue:  We should make sure that there is a  
reasonably clear view of priorities for preservering installed  
base... or not.
Is it ok with folks to be required to replace essentially all of  
the current software, administration and user deployment?
The new draft charter would seem to impose a very high barrier on  
changes that render the new specifications incompatible with  
existing implementations.  It's language is similar to that of  
other IETF efforts that seek to minimize incompatibilities.
However Stephen's comment creates a much, much lower barrier, and  
is concerned only with stored data that are queried.
Both are views reasonable, depending upon community need.  My guess  
is that the IETF's version of DKIM will deploy in about a year, if  
we are lucky.  So that the migration disruption would occur around  
then, and go for a year or two.
(For reference, the DKIM pre-IETF effort similarly debated this  
point extensively, relative to DomainKeys compatibility.  It's  
never an easy choice.)
For what it is worth, my most recent domain scan found absolutely no  
growth in the adoption of DK records since the last time I ran the  
scan (just before the previous IETF).
I understand there is a desire not to introduce many more things or  
drive the spec in new directions, and I agree with that.  Having said  
that, it is better to make any changes now while adoption is low than  
wait until adoption is much higher.
-andy
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org