[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful
pbaker at verisign.com
Wed Mar 22 17:32:14 PST 2006
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of 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?
Incompatibility is a very serious concern, however at the point that one
incompatible change in a module has been accepted it is a weak argument when
made against a proposal to make another change.
In such circumstances it seems very reasonable to ask for more
I think that in this particular case it is clear that we should argue the
case on the merits. As I and others have observed there are very powerful
arguments in favor of this change, I would like to hear if anyone has an
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5986 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/attachments/20060322/c75fe09c/smime.bin
More information about the ietf-dkim