[ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
Rolf E. Sonneveld
R.E.Sonneveld at sonnection.nl
Mon May 9 14:51:02 PDT 2011
On 5/9/11 11:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM
>> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
>> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
>> 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).
More information about the ietf-dkim