----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Allman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful
> My take is that making gratuitous changes is silly and should be > avoided. Personally, I like "|" as a separator better than ":", but > that's pretty gratuitious and I would oppose such a change on > principle. Ditto. > If there weren't other required changes then I might feel > differently. But the SHA-256 change means that both signers and > verifiers are going to have to update their software anyway. This > will be just part of that update. No extra work for the installed > base. - RELAYED broke my version of the DKIM code. - SHA-256 broke my version of the DKIM code. - Mike's capitalized X= introduced threw us into a spin until it was realized the TAGS are case sensitive. It was picked up as a expiration tag. Our fault, but it can happen. But thats all good. Early implementators should know there is a possibility of changes. The charter made that clear. > If the proposed change weren't at least some improvement then I might > feel differently. But I think it is an improvement. We can argue > how much of one, but that's not the point. Ditto. I think its a big improvement over whats we have now. > If it was impossible to provide a transition period then I might feel > differently. But it's not impossible, as has been described. > > In short, I'm in favor of this change. > > Or perhaps I should have just said "me too". Ditto. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
