On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that
people might not have appreciated the full implications of what they
were arguing about?
Based on the discussion I listened to in the DKIM session, I am
confident that people who proposed changing the name of SSP are fully
aware that slightly more than zero effort would be required to change
record names from _ssp to _frodo or whatever, and perhaps even a
slight additional amount of effort would be needed to publish and
check both old and new names for a few weeks while people catch up.
Might I also add that we agreed to a totally incompatible change from
DomainKeys to DKIM in the interest of harmonizing the final standard
even though the *installed based* was/is quite large.
In that light, I'm interested in understanding why breaking
DomainKeys for non-technical reasons was ok, yet breaking an _ssp
draft with a relatively miniscule adoption rate is less than ok.
Put another way, we had a bunch of working code that the IETF threw
away. Why is our working code less important that the _ssp working code?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html