On 5/9/11 11:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM >> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider 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. > I object mainly for procedural reasons, and not technical ones: > > - I don't want to hold up -bis any longer; > - the PS-DS promotion "rules" say we should cut stuff that's not actually in > use, but this is; > - we therefore don't have any data to conclude that there isn't anyone out > there that finds it exceptionally useful despite the dangers
+1 (especially for reasons 2 and 3). /rolf _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
