[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Russ Housley]

Dave:

My concern was that you only talked about the backward 
compatibility.  In the future, please couple the backward 
compatibility issue with the other dimensions discussed in the 
charter.  For example, a statement that a backward compatibility 
concern can be avoided if we do A instead of B to meet technical 
objective C is completely appropriate.  I did not interpret you 
message in this light.

Again, the DKIM charter says:

    Experimentation has resulted in Internet deployment of these
    specifications. Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible
    changes to these specifications will be acceptable if the DKIM working
    group determines that the changes are required to meet the group's
    technical objectives.

Enough on this topic, I think.  Back to the technical discussion, please.

Russ


At 03:07 PM 3/22/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Russ,
>
>>This topic was addressed at great length during development of the 
>>DKIM charter, which says:
>
>I am not sure what topic you think was addressed.  Since no one has 
>suggested that the working group effort lacks authority to make 
>changes I can't guess what you are referring to.
>
>Since there already are voices making clear that the question of 
>compatibility is important, here, and since asking that question 
>does not imply that the outcome is pre-determined, I am really 
>curious why Stephen and now you seem so focused on it.
>
>>If changes are needed, make them!  Be aware of the backward 
>>compatibility issues, but this cannot be used to stifle discussion 
>>or innovation.
>
>Who has been trying to "stifle discussion or innovation" and how 
>have they been doing that?
>
>If you answer is "no one" then why did you feel it necessary to 
>utter this directive?
>
>d/
>--
>
>Dave Crocker
>Brandenburg InternetWorking
><http://bbiw.net>