Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The IESG wrote (quoting the proposed DKIM charter):

> Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment of these
> specifications, the DKIM working group will make every reasonable
attempt to
> keep changes compatible with what is deployed, making incompatible
changes only
> when they are necessary for the success of the specifications.

Ted Hardie wrote (quoting an XMPP charter):

>>Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible changes to the
>>basis specifications will be acceptable if the working group
>>determines that the changes are required to meet the group's
>>technical objectives and the group clearly documents the reasons for
>>making them.
>>    
>>
I don't really see much difference between the two sentences.  In one
case, the bar is "necessary for the success of the specifications" while
in the other case it's "required to meet the group's technical
objectives" (and hopefully the group's technical objectives are for the
success of the specifications).  In one case, non-backwards-compatible
changes are not encouraged, while in the other, every reasonable attempt
is made to keep things compatible.

It's a significant precedent that IETF charters have included language
of this sort when there has been a deployed base at the time the WG is
chartered.  But can someone explain what's different in this wording
that warrants departing from the version on which there seems to be
rough consensus?


-Jim

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]