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

[Eric Allman]

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.

eric


--On March 11, 2008 11:20:02 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> 
wrote:

>
>
> 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/