Michael Thomas wrote:
Eric Allman wrote:
I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the
topic that Mike was talking about. When you break existing
implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version,
you do create problems for the people who are volunteering to live on
the bleeding edge --- and tend to be the best people to give you
practical feedback. There should be a good reason for this. Perhaps
we have a good reason here, perhaps not. But I heard you say on
Monday that implementations of drafts should not be a consideration
on how to proceed. I disagree --- it should be a consideration. Not
as big a consideration as Mike believes, perhaps, but a consideration
none the less.
I'm only asking for it to be *a* consideration.
It is. But I don't see anyone else having such a problem with this.
If they do, they should speak up.
I'm pretty convinced
the people debating these name changes were clueless about the
That kind of statement is not helpful.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html