I object. Barry Leiba wrote: >> 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 > >
-- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
