Very nice posting. Thanks.
We now have another example of a message addressing backward
compatibility in a manner that is in line with the charter, even if
the end of the message had reached the opposite colclusion.
Russ
At 03:47 PM 3/22/2006, Eric Allman wrote:
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.
But I'm reminded of the syntax of the sendmail.cf file. A great
many years ago I realized that the syntax sucked and I should fix
it, but I didn't in the name of back compatibility (there were
perhaps a few hundred servers that would have been affected). In
retrospect that was stupid.
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.
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.
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".
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html