----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Allman" <eric+dkim(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)org>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful
My take is that making gratuitous changes is silly and should be
avoided. Personally, I like "|" as a separator better than ":", but
that's pretty gratuitious and I would oppose such a change on
principle.
Ditto.
If there weren't other required changes then I might feel
differently. But the SHA-256 change means that both signers and
verifiers are going to have to update their software anyway. This
will be just part of that update. No extra work for the installed
base.
- RELAYED broke my version of the DKIM code.
- SHA-256 broke my version of the DKIM code.
- Mike's capitalized X= introduced threw us into a spin
until it was realized the TAGS are case sensitive. It was
picked up as a expiration tag. Our fault, but it can happen.
But thats all good. Early implementators should know there is a
possibility of changes. The charter made that clear.
If the proposed change weren't at least some improvement then I might
feel differently. But I think it is an improvement. We can argue
how much of one, but that's not the point.
Ditto. I think its a big improvement over whats we have now.
If it was impossible to provide a transition period then I might feel
differently. But it's not impossible, as has been described.
In short, I'm in favor of this change.
Or perhaps I should have just said "me too".
Ditto.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html