[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Michael Thomas]

Russ Housley wrote:
> 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.


Please. I brought this issue up. It was not the *only* objection,
and I *did* bring up an alternate way to solve the problem without
breaking backward compatibility, at least until the motivation
morphed into something other than the originally stated goal.

		Mike

> 
> 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>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html