[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Russ Housley]

No Dave. 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.

If you had said that the group's technical objectives could be met 
without introducing an non-backwards-compatible change, then we would 
not be having this dialogue.  You only talked about the backward compatibility.

Russ


At 04:45 PM 3/22/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:


>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>
>