I raised the issue and got the same response, i.e. agenda denial and refusal
to answer the substantive point.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:40 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Russ Housley; dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net;
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
[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.
Really? I don't remember that. In fact, there was no backward
compatibility issues at that time because the DKIM-Signature
header/hashing was different than the DK signature/hashing.
As I remember it, the chosen hash generation was different
than both IIM and DK. And here we are two years later, um,
rehashing the same decision.
Mike
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html