At 19:33 29-04-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I quite agree that there's lots of text that's changing, but I'm
having trouble finding much in the way of actual protocol
change. Most of the changes I can recall have to do with dropping
advice or technical context that was simply incorrect or poorly
stated given the hindsight we now have. Fixing all of that can only
help future implementations.
That sounds fine as long as there is agreement on the new text.
This is why moving to DS is not allowed if we add stuff, only if we
remove stuff. So far, unless I've missed something, that's all we've done.
DS is not about not adding stuff and removing stuff. The advancement
is about the maturity of the specification. This can be gauged in
terms of implementation and interoperability.
There are different approaches for such a move; a conservative one
where changes are narrow to avoid destabilizing the specification or
one where the rationale is changed without affecting the
requirements. This case can be argued both ways. I prefer to see
implementer buy-in than a label in name only.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html