On 4/27/2011 9:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I've been keeping up with the specification changes both in terms of the
documentation and the impact of the changes on live source code. That's
really helped to keep us honest in terms of backward compatibility.
...
It is a useful data point to note that I haven't had to make any alterations
to OpenDKIM as a result of either RFC5672 or the -bis changes.
1. Has the working group been constantly careful to consider whether a change
was substantive and whether it might run afoul of the rules for going to Draft?
Yes.
2. Has the working group been reasonably diligent with develop the changes,
including taking time to reflect on the changes and to consider criticisms of
proposed changes?
Yes.
3. Are there any specific claims of non-conformance to Draft requirements that
are unresolved by the wg?
No.
With that sort of documented history, the responsibility to claim otherwise
falls on the critic. Otherwise the wg is essentially being asked to prove a
negative and almost serves as a DOS attack...
Complaining is easy. Trying to put the work on others is easy. Doing
foundational work to support a claim is not.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html