No Dave. 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.
If you had said that the group's technical objectives could be met
without introducing an non-backwards-compatible change, then we would
not be having this dialogue. You only talked about the backward compatibility.
Russ
At 04:45 PM 3/22/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
Russ Housley wrote:
> Not exactly. I do not want to see backwards compatibility raised as the
sole reason for objecting to something. I offered one way to
approach this. There are clearly other acceptable ones.
So incompatibility is somehow a lesser status than any other sort of concern?
Why?
What is particularly strange is that this seems to be taking the
charter language and using it to deprecate the concern about
incompatibility, rather than strengthen it.
And forgive my ignorance of IETF process, but I do not recall seeing
such a stricture from IETF management asserted previously. After so
many years, I doubt that anything is literally unprecedented, but
this does seem pretty close.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html