[ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output

[Hector Santos]

Volume tends to hide many important data points at the domain level. 
Many times its just 1-2 domains (and their implementation) that are 
showing how specs are being read/used.

My view in reading this complex document, many parts has become 
"sparse" with its technical information.  For the available tags to 
consider, most readers will use 3.5 as a quick guide and that is where 
the first warning should be highlighted.   It isn't highlighted unless 
you do a search for "l=" to see any other references for it.

So if we are not going to deprecate it and talk mostly about 
discouraging usage, the "Quick Guide" 3.5 tags sections should be the 
very first place with this important "tidbit."

Barry Leiba wrote:
>> We are spending an awful amount of time on this l= issue, whether it should
>> be pulled, keep it and explaining how bad it is and discourage usage.
> 
> Agreed.  I would like to deprecate it.  But we don't have consensus
> for going that far, and I think we're too late in the process to get
> ourselves mired in that.  What we're doing now is just short of
> deprecating it -- saying that, well, you really shouldn't oughta use
> it, without being normative.
> 
>> The 6% using "l=" needlessly is a red flag.
> 
> Yep.  Happily, we (where "we", here, mostly means Murray, but some
> others as well) are collecting stats.
> 
> It's possible, later, for someone to create an individual submission
> for "DKIM l= Considered Harmful", or some such, and perhaps if/when
> someone ever moves DKIM to full Standard we can actually deprecate l=.
> 
> Barry, as participant
> 
> 

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com