[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Russ Housley]

Dave:

Not exactly.  I do not want to see backwards compatibility raised as 
the sole reason for objecting to something.  I offered one way to 
approach this.  There are clearly other acceptable ones.

Russ


At 04:33 PM 3/22/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Russ,
>
>>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.
>
>Let me see if I understand the requirement you are describing:
>
>1. Someone makes a suggestion for a change.
>
>2. The group discusses its benefits and leans towards adoption.
>
>3. Someone else notes that this breaks validation from pre-IETF signers.
>
>(further steps occurred, but your rule appears to apply to this third step)
>
>It appears that you are asserting that any such expression of 
>concern about incompatibility requires repeating whatever the 
>trade-offs are, nevermind that the benefits have already been expressed.
>
>It further appears that anytime someone expresses a concern for 
>compatibility with pre-IETF implementations, but fails to include 
>other text that discusses this as a collection of trade-offs, you or 
>a chair feel compelled to treat the concern as if it were a scope or 
>process challenge.
>
>Since I am not aware that any other expressions of benefit or 
>detriment are automatically expected to carefully list a full set of 
>trade-offs, please explain the assertion of this policy in this case.
>
>
>  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.
>
>Like Stephen, you appear to have read vastly more in my text than I 
>put there. I never stated nor implied my own preference about the 
>resolution of the current topic.  (For reference, I was in fact 
>conflicted about it.)  Rather, I was and am concerned that 
>incompatibilities be treated carefully.
>
>
>>Again, the DKIM charter says:
>
>Thanks for including that, yet again.  I hadn't read it carefully 
>enough before.
>
>d/
>
>--
>
>Dave Crocker
>Brandenburg InternetWorking
><http://bbiw.net>
>