[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
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?
Incompatibility is a very serious concern, however at the point that one
incompatible change in a module has been accepted it is a weak argument when
made against a proposal to make another change.
In such circumstances it seems very reasonable to ask for more
justification.
I think that in this particular case it is clear that we should argue the
case on the merits. As I and others have observed there are very powerful
arguments in favor of this change, I would like to hear if anyone has an
argument against.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html