Dave:
My concern was that you only talked about the backward
compatibility. In the future, please couple the backward
compatibility issue with the other dimensions discussed in the
charter. For example, a statement that a backward compatibility
concern can be avoided if we do A instead of B to meet technical
objective C is completely appropriate. I did not interpret you
message in this light.
Again, the DKIM charter says:
Experimentation has resulted in Internet deployment of these
specifications. Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible
changes to these specifications will be acceptable if the DKIM working
group determines that the changes are required to meet the group's
technical objectives.
Enough on this topic, I think. Back to the technical discussion, please.
Russ
At 03:07 PM 3/22/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
Russ,
This topic was addressed at great length during development of the
DKIM charter, which says:
I am not sure what topic you think was addressed. Since no one has
suggested that the working group effort lacks authority to make
changes I can't guess what you are referring to.
Since there already are voices making clear that the question of
compatibility is important, here, and since asking that question
does not imply that the outcome is pre-determined, I am really
curious why Stephen and now you seem so focused on it.
If changes are needed, make them! Be aware of the backward
compatibility issues, but this cannot be used to stifle discussion
or innovation.
Who has been trying to "stifle discussion or innovation" and how
have they been doing that?
If you answer is "no one" then why did you feel it necessary to
utter this directive?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html