[ietf-dkim] Issue 1550 - the name of the document (remains open *briefly*); there's still,disagreement on "Author"
eric+dkim at sendmail.org
Wed Mar 12 13:31:57 PDT 2008
I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the
topic that Mike was talking about. When you break existing
implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version,
you do create problems for the people who are volunteering to live on
the bleeding edge --- and tend to be the best people to give you
practical feedback. There should be a good reason for this. Perhaps
we have a good reason here, perhaps not. But I heard you say on
Monday that implementations of drafts should not be a consideration
on how to proceed. I disagree --- it should be a consideration. Not
as big a consideration as Mike believes, perhaps, but a consideration
none the less.
--On March 11, 2008 11:20:02 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net>
> 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
> Perhaps we can ratchet down the hyperbole and return to the
> reasoned consideration we have recently been enjoying in the
> working group?
More information about the ietf-dkim