Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Thomas:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy.
Then it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a
showstopper way.
Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts
should have sway over the ability to change those drafts.
Hold sway != have a say. I think that people who have some
skin in the game should be considered carefully. What I read
here is dismissal (= "hold sway").
That argument is not without precedent, but it almost never is
acceptable to the working group to let that narrow installed base
dictate working group choices.
Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on anybody's
radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and completely.
Doing that is devaluing running code which last time I checked counts
for something. I'd really like to deploy something for the reflector,
but this silly last minute name changing makes that all pointless.
Gentlemen, let's focus on getting it right for future deployment,
and not on maintaining continuity with temporary experiments.
How much in the future are we talking about? I don't believe this week
bizness; there's wg last call, ietf last call and however many telechats
and DISCUSS's the iesg throws our way. That's at least 6 months in my
experience and for _what_? That the internal label of a DNS query be
consistent with the name of the document? What an utterly pointless and
bureaucratic impediment to getting some real life experience.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html