From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 10:48:59 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 4.7.3.6. RFC 987 backwards compatibility
>
> The mapping defined here is different to that used in RFC 987, as the
> RFC 987 mapping lead to changed message IDs in many cases. Fixing
> the problems is preferable to retaining backwards compatibility. An
> implementation of this standard may recognise message IDs generated
> by RFC 987. This is not recommended.
>
> Which is also an example of where "backwards compatibility" (in my sense
> of the term)
No, "retaining backwards compatbility" in this instance means
that the installed infrastructure would continue to be
considered compliant with the new standard, which is exactly
the same meaning of "backwards compaibility" used in other
contexts.
> was deliberately violated. Did someone say that the IETF
> never did that (not that Usefor is trying to)?
I do not recall use of "never". And the Usefor *draft* as its
editor has written it breaks backwards compatibility for no
good reason. Per contra, the Usefor *WG* *charter* specifically
calls for paying particular attention to backwards compatibilty,
and many *WG* *participants* recognize the need for backwards
compatibility.