[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

I raised the issue and got the same response, i.e. agenda denial and refusal
to answer the substantive point. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike at mtcc.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: Russ Housley; dcrocker at bbiw.net; ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful
> 
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >>[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> > 
> > 
> >>Define "needed". If the standard of "needed" is "required 
> to make the 
> >>protocol viable", then this is not "needed". If "needed" means 
> >>"anything we feel like changing, we can change", then the 
> words in the 
> >>charter are meaningless.
> > 
> > 
> > Needed means that the value of making the change is 
> justified by the 
> > cost of making the change.
> > 
> > In this case the cost of the change now is much less than the cost 
> > will be in the future. This particular change was proposed multiple 
> > times during the development of DKIM (I was the proposer). 
> Each time 
> > the pushback was the cost of making the change.
> 
> Really? I don't remember that. In fact, there was no backward 
> compatibility issues at that time because the DKIM-Signature 
> header/hashing was different than the DK signature/hashing. 
> As I remember it, the chosen hash generation was different 
> than both IIM and DK. And here we are two years later, um, 
> rehashing the same decision.
> 
> 		Mike
> 
> 
-------------- 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/d0303a4a/smime.bin