[ietf-dkim] Issue 1550 - the name of the document (remains open *briefly*); there's still,disagreement on "Author"
wietse at porcupine.org
Tue Mar 11 15:24:40 PDT 2008
> 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.
More information about the ietf-dkim