[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Feb 10 14:28:57 PST 2014

On 2/10/2014 2:24 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> At base, I think we're being quite cavalier about the actual costs
>> of incompatibility.
> I think you are being quite cavalier about the costs of
> compatibility, Dave.   My point is simply that keeping backward
> compatibility in the grammar does not ensure backward compatibility
> in the implementation.   So the upside to keeping backward
> compatibility is questionable, and should be weighed in comparison to
> the costs, and not considered as an isolated Good Thing.

You really don't see the basic flaw in your logic, from sentence 2 to 
sentence 3?  Really?

Still, the end of your paragraph would be ok, if the tone of the group 
weren't so clearly biased towards dismissing compatibility and, 
therefore, ensuring its absence.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list