[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

> [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
justification. 

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
argument against.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5986 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/attachments/20060322/c75fe09c/smime.bin