I raised the issue and got the same response, i.e. agenda denial and refusal to answer the substantive point.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:40 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Russ Housley; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >>[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. > > Really? I don't remember that. In fact, there was no backward > compatibility issues at that time because the DKIM-Signature > header/hashing was different than the DK signature/hashing. > As I remember it, the chosen hash generation was different > than both IIM and DK. And here we are two years later, um, > rehashing the same decision. > > Mike > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
