[ietf-dkim] Issue 1550 - the name of the document (remains open *briefly*); there's still,disagreement on "Author"
mike at mtcc.com
Tue Mar 11 15:32:10 PDT 2008
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Thomas:
>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>> It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy.
>>>> Then it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
>>>> something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a
>>>> showstopper way.
>>> Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts
>>> should have sway over the ability to change those drafts.
>> Hold sway != have a say. I think that people who have some
>> skin in the game should be considered carefully. What I read
>> here is dismissal (= "hold sway").
>>> That argument is not without precedent, but it almost never is
>>> acceptable to the working group to let that narrow installed base
>>> dictate working group choices.
>> Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on anybody's
>> radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and completely.
>> Doing that is devaluing running code which last time I checked counts
>> for something. I'd really like to deploy something for the reflector,
>> but this silly last minute name changing makes that all pointless.
> Gentlemen, let's focus on getting it right for future deployment,
> and not on maintaining continuity with temporary experiments.
How much in the future are we talking about? I don't believe this week
bizness; there's wg last call, ietf last call and however many telechats
and DISCUSS's the iesg throws our way. That's at least 6 months in my
experience and for _what_? That the internal label of a DNS query be
consistent with the name of the document? What an utterly pointless and
bureaucratic impediment to getting some real life experience.
More information about the ietf-dkim