Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 17 May 2007 21:16 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HonKu-0005eN-OZ; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:36 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HojDF-0006qm-0a for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:52:25 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HojDE-0006qe-NB for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:52:24 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HojDC-0003Np-1t for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:52:24 -0400
Received: from [10.200.96.202] ([216.168.240.140]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4HGpn01017203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 May 2007 09:51:50 -0700
Message-ID: <464C8822.7020503@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:51:46 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <4648E8CB.3010502@dcrocker.net> <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org> <4649FA12.30909@alvestrand.no> <4649FB9A.9000107@bbiw.net> <1504A69099CF1B62F66FE576@p3.JCK.COM> <tsllkfnwgfb.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tsllkfnwgfb.fsf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: dhc2@dcrocker.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:34 -0400
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Sam,

> Ultimately cases like this should be evaluated based on whether the
> final result is more clear overall.


What about protecting the installed base for the existing spec?

In other words, your "based on" contains a single criterion, for an 
environment that typically requires multiple.  And the current situation is 
certainly one of those.

Changing the specification makes sense when it does not yet have much 
momentum, or when the problem is basic and severe.

For technology that has been in widespread use for 10-30 years, and an 
extremely small number of problem reports, changing the specification looks 
like exactly the wrong decision.


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net