> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Define "needed". If the standard of "needed" is "required to > make the protocol viable", then this is not "needed". If > "needed" means "anything we feel like changing, we can > change", then the words in the charter are meaningless. Needed means that the value of making the change is justified by the cost of making the change. In this case the cost of the change now is much less than the cost will be in the future. This particular change was proposed multiple times during the development of DKIM (I was the proposer). Each time the pushback was the cost of making the change. I don't think anyone has come close to justifying the title of this post. If people want to make the case that the proposal is harmful, that is given a completely unconstrained design choice the current scheme should be chosen over the proposal then they should make that case, I don't see it. There is a big cost to introducing backwards incompatible change. This proposal does not affect any part of DKIM that has not already been affected and the backwards compatibility lost.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
