ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

2006-03-22 18:05:24
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas

Define "needed". If the standard of "needed" is "required to 
make the protocol viable", then this is not "needed". If 
"needed" means "anything we feel like changing, we can 
change", then the words in the charter are meaningless.

Needed means that the value of making the change is justified by the cost of
making the change.

In this case the cost of the change now is much less than the cost will be
in the future. This particular change was proposed multiple times during the
development of DKIM (I was the proposer). Each time the pushback was the
cost of making the change.

I don't think anyone has come close to justifying the title of this post. If
people want to make the case that the proposal is harmful, that is given a
completely unconstrained design choice the current scheme should be chosen
over the proposal then they should make that case, I don't see it.

There is a big cost to introducing backwards incompatible change. This
proposal does not affect any part of DKIM that has not already been affected
and the backwards compatibility lost.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>