I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the topic that Mike was talking about. When you break existing implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version, you do create problems for the people who are volunteering to live on the bleeding edge --- and tend to be the best people to give you practical feedback. There should be a good reason for this. Perhaps we have a good reason here, perhaps not. But I heard you say on Monday that implementations of drafts should not be a consideration on how to proceed. I disagree --- it should be a consideration. Not as big a consideration as Mike believes, perhaps, but a consideration none the less.
eric --On March 11, 2008 11:20:02 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Eric Allman wrote: > >> Dave seems to be forgetting that early implementations of drafts >> are a good way to get practical feedback into the process --- >> it's more than a gedanken experiment. Mike seems to forget that >> these /are/ drafts, and drafts do (and should) change. > > > Hi, Eric. Welcome back. > > Perhaps you missed my noting: > > Basically, I believe you are confusing the benefit of getting > data from > > prototypes, versus the more extensive damage done by changing an > > installed global service. > > which seems to acknowledge explicitly what you are saying I was > forgetting. It was certainly meant to. > > Simply extending the logic at work against change, here, serves to > mandate absolutely no changes, as soon as anyone has written a > single line of code. Since I suspect no one really means that, what > is missing is the offering for how this particular change has an > impact that really is as disastrous as is being claimed. > > Lest it be forgotten, the motivating text for this sub-thread was: > Michael Thomas wrote: > > Each time you change it, implementations break in a > > showstopper way. > > Now perhaps it registers differently with you, but I'd class that > language as dire. And it is about a working group draft that has > just recently undergone massive change. (Just how recent that > change occurred is yet another item that seems to be getting > forgotten.) > > Perhaps we can ratchet down the hyperbole and return to the > reasoned consideration we have recently been enjoying in the > working group? > > d/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
