> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Russ Housley wrote: > > Not exactly. I do not want to see backwards > compatibility raised as the > > sole reason for objecting to something. I offered one way > to approach > > this. There are clearly other acceptable ones. > > So incompatibility is somehow a lesser status than any other > sort of concern? Incompatibility is a very serious concern, however at the point that one incompatible change in a module has been accepted it is a weak argument when made against a proposal to make another change. In such circumstances it seems very reasonable to ask for more justification. I think that in this particular case it is clear that we should argue the case on the merits. As I and others have observed there are very powerful arguments in favor of this change, I would like to hear if anyone has an argument against.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
