Eric Allman wrote:
> 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.
I'm only asking for it to be *a* consideration. I'm pretty convinced
the people debating these name changes were clueless about the
interoperability implications and that this isn't _just_ an
editorial change. Did that really require a debating team response
that I need to back up my assertions and document each and every
developer who's contacted me? It's just a simple fact. Sheesh.
Mike, and no i'm not going to name names as I
don't know if that's ok with them
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
