Michael,
On 5/4/2011 7:58 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > This is a good example of why this effort has come off the rails. > Going from 4871 to DS should have been a fairly straightforward > effort considering the high degree of interoperability we achieved. > Instead of just removing a few unused features, we've seen a > wholesale rewrite when one was manifestly not needed. Worse, > is that when that history is mentioned it is either disregarded > or sneered at by the senior editor. That is a problem. "Wholesale rewrite"? Well, that should be easy for you to document, given how convenient it is to point to the existing diffs. The task when citing a problem with changes is to point to /specific/ changes that are problematic. That requires some work. In particular, please cite normative differences. As for the particular difference between rfc4871's statement of DKIM's purpose and rfc4871bis' statement, you might want to review the language in the Service Overview and the Deployment documents. On this issue, the working group's learning process has been incremental and well documented. As for 'sneering' at history, please do cite that occurrence, too. Please distinguish between citing history versus sneering at it. Explaining the criteria that qualifies as 'sneering' would be helpful. I am also surprised to discover that we have any junior editors or, for that matter, that editors are distinguished by seniority. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html