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

[Dave Crocker]

Eric Allman wrote:

> Dave seems to be forgetting that early implementations of drafts are 
> a good way to get practical feedback into the process --- it's more 
> than a gedanken experiment.  Mike seems to forget that these /are/ 
> drafts, and drafts do (and should) change.


Hi, Eric.  Welcome back.

Perhaps you missed my noting:
 > Basically, I believe you are confusing the benefit of getting data from
 > prototypes, versus the more extensive damage done by changing an
 > installed global service.

which seems to acknowledge explicitly what you are saying I was forgetting.  It 
was certainly meant to.

Simply extending the logic at work against change, here, serves to mandate 
absolutely no changes, as soon as anyone has written a single line of code. 
Since I suspect no one really means that, what is missing is the offering for 
how this particular change has an impact that really is as disastrous as is 
being claimed.

Lest it be forgotten, the motivating text for this sub-thread was:
Michael Thomas wrote:
 >   Each time you change it, implementations break in a
 > showstopper way.

Now perhaps it registers differently with you, but I'd class that language as 
dire.  And it is about a working group draft that has just recently undergone 
massive change.  (Just how recent that change occurred is yet another item that 
seems to be getting forgotten.)

Perhaps we can ratchet down the hyperbole and return to the reasoned 
consideration we have recently been enjoying in the working group?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net