[ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="

[Hector Santos]

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