[ietf-dkim] Issue 1550 - the name of the document (remains open *briefly*); there's still,disagreement on "Author"

[Wietse Venema]

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.

	Wietse