> I'd like to request that we specifically test for consensus on > deprecating "l=" through the usual +1/-1 approach. No miring, just a > vote.
Semantics first: we don't "vote" here. OK, that taken care of, it's a fair request, because there's been a lot of discussion about it. We certainly have a good base of support for deprecating "l=". So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thread for it: I determine from discussion that there's enough support for deprecating "l=" to qualify as rough consensus *if* there's not much objection to it. It's the objection we need to gauge. Please post to this thread if you object to deprecating "l=" in 4871bis. You may say why you object, but please keep it brief, and let's not have a lot of discussion of it here. If there's enough objection to derail deprecation, we will leave it alone. You may also weigh in as objecting if you don't want to delay the document by doing this. I'll let this go until 25 May, or until there's enough objection that we have our answer, whichever comes first. If we decide to deprecate it, I'll ask Murray to make the edits, and then we'll need to have the working group approve the result, so I expect that'll take another two weeks or so -- say, until 11 June. Have at it. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
