[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Hector Santos]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Allman" <eric+dkim at sendmail.org>
To: <ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful


> My take is that making gratuitous changes is silly and should be 
> avoided.  Personally, I like "|" as a separator better than ":", but 
> that's pretty gratuitious and I would oppose such a change on 
> principle.

Ditto.

> If there weren't other required changes then I might feel 
> differently.  But the SHA-256 change means that both signers and 
> verifiers are going to have to update their software anyway.  This 
> will be just part of that update.  No extra work for the installed 
> base.

- RELAYED broke my version of the DKIM code.

- SHA-256 broke my version of the DKIM code.

- Mike's capitalized X= introduced threw us into a spin 
  until it was realized the TAGS are case sensitive. It was
  picked up as a expiration tag.  Our fault, but it can happen.

But thats all good.  Early implementators should know there is a 
possibility of changes. The charter made that clear.

> If the proposed change weren't at least some improvement then I might 
> feel differently.  But I think it is an improvement.  We can argue 
> how much of one, but that's not the point.

Ditto. I think its a big improvement over whats we have now.

> If it was impossible to provide a transition period then I might feel 
> differently.  But it's not impossible, as has been described.
> 
> In short, I'm in favor of this change.
> 
> Or perhaps I should have just said "me too".

Ditto.

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com