ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

2006-03-22 14:29:58
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