On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:20 PM, John Levine wrote: >> Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that >> people might not have appreciated the full implications of what they >> were arguing about? > > Based on the discussion I listened to in the DKIM session, I am > confident that people who proposed changing the name of SSP are fully > aware that slightly more than zero effort would be required to change > record names from _ssp to _frodo or whatever, and perhaps even a > slight additional amount of effort would be needed to publish and > check both old and new names for a few weeks while people catch up.
Might I also add that we agreed to a totally incompatible change from DomainKeys to DKIM in the interest of harmonizing the final standard even though the *installed based* was/is quite large. In that light, I'm interested in understanding why breaking DomainKeys for non-technical reasons was ok, yet breaking an _ssp draft with a relatively miniscule adoption rate is less than ok. Put another way, we had a bunch of working code that the IETF threw away. Why is our working code less important that the _ssp working code? Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
