[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Dave Crocker]

Russ Housley wrote:
  > 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.

So incompatibility is somehow a lesser status than any other sort of concern?

Why?

What is particularly strange is that this seems to be taking the charter 
language and using it to deprecate the concern about incompatibility, rather 
than strengthen it.

And forgive my ignorance of IETF process, but I do not recall seeing such a 
stricture from IETF management asserted previously.  After so many years, I 
doubt that anything is literally unprecedented, but this does seem pretty close.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>