![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
My current understanding is that the deployments
are small enough that changes are still easy and that non backwards
compatible changes are already expected.
Mail is, in fact, pretty different than most IETF protocols insofar as it's a store and forward system where there can be no expectation of end to end negotiation which is generally helpful for smoothing out protocol botches and incompatible changes. With mail every time you make an incompatible change, you have to hope that the receiver at the far end is in synch with that incompatible change or you're pretty well hosed. With each one the utility of the protocol is divided and conquered.
I'm not sure who Keith was talking about with his broad brush assertion -- there are probably about 30+ people who've had a hand in the creation of the current drafts before we ever brought it to IETF, but my concern is that given complete lattitude the resulting thrashing around will produce an extremely narrow intersection between compatible senders and receivers. Which will constitute failure in all likelihood.
On the other hand, I think its really a stretch to say that we are unwilling to listen, or that we're looking for a rubber stamp. We have already agreed to -- and incorporated -- a substantial backward incompatible change (the canonicalization) due to feedback (and threats) we got. What I'm hoping for is that there is a sufficiently high barrier that cosmetic changes not be good enough reason to make a backward incompatible revs. Equally disasterous would be to throw this entire area open for a greenfield design; considerable time and effort has been expended, and frankly Keith's observations don't strike me as new or novel -- we've been at this for many years at this point, and his points have been hashed and rehashed many times over the years by the people who have been paying attention to this more than just the week before and after a BOF.
Mike
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.