On May 9, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 5/9/2011 7:40 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) 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. > > > This isn't my vote, but a comment: > > Oddly, I'm finding myself coming to believe that its use within a coordinated > template for mediators might actually being helpful. This assumes, of > course, > that the template can be specified and gain consensus, and that signers, > verifiers and mediators all are willing to implement it. Hence, this path > involves significant effort. > > One could argue that it's cleaner to drop it now and explore re-introducing > it > in the effort to develop that template.
It sounds like what you're suggesting would be quite different from (and more complex than) l=, and would have very different semantics compared with the current numeric definition of l=. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
