Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:02:36 +0100, Barry Leiba wrote: > That was quick. I believe we already have enough objections to say > that we do NOT have rough consensus for deprecating l= at this time. > I'll close the issue in the tracker (issue #26), and we will leave it > as it is. > > Of course, folks may, if it makes them feel good, continue to register > objections here. Yes, leave it be. Point out some problems if you wish, but no more. People seem to be using it. -- Charles H. Lindsey -At Home, doing my own thing Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
On May 9, 2011, at 5:14 PM, John Levine wrote: > I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I > find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive. +1 > I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are > using it, notably, for all those messages where l= doesn't cover > the whole body, what's in the naked part. l=0 is the other variant I've noticed, covering just the headers. It's something I can see some value in doing, if your main concerns are something other than phishing. Cheers, Steve ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
On May 9, 2011, at 5:14 PM, John Levine wrote: > I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I > find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive. Agreed (which is a -1 to removal.) > I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are > using it, notably, for all those messages where l= doesn't cover > the whole body, what's in the naked part. Agreed. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive. I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are using it, notably, for all those messages where l= doesn't cover the whole body, what's in the naked part. R's, John ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
Barry Leiba wrote: >> 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. > > That was quick. I believe we already have enough objections to say > that we do NOT have rough consensus for deprecating l= at this time. > I'll close the issue in the tracker (issue #26), and we will leave it > as it is. > > Of course, folks may, if it makes them feel good, continue to register > objections here. > > :-D But that still shouldn't mean the functional and technical informations should not be clarified. Maybe the "two weeks or so" can be used to do that? To me, the basic issue is that "l=" consideration is not isolated to itself - other factors such has what headers to sign, reducing message content complexity, removing items that could be stripped for security purposes (i.e. HTML), etc, all ideas that basically mean "Know Your Target!" If we can describe it better, then maybe we can give the readers the benefit of the doubt they may decide themselves its not needed for their purpose and implementators a better idea how to expose the option to operators. -- 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
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
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
Re: [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. That was quick. I believe we already have enough objections to say that we do NOT have rough consensus for deprecating l= at this time. I'll close the issue in the tracker (issue #26), and we will leave it as it is. Of course, folks may, if it makes them feel good, continue to register objections here. :-D Barry, as chair ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
On 05/09/2011 02:28 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > 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. > I object. I've already asked whether there's been one documented case of ill effect in 5+ years. Crickets. Mike ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
On 05/09/2011 02:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > - 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 > Yes we do have plenty of data supporting its use. It works great irrespective of the FUD spread about it, and I provided that data at great length in the past. This process has run amok. Mike ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
> - 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 oops. he's right. it /is/ in use and we have no basis for claiming that those using it find no benefit in it. Hence (and with regret): -1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
On 5/9/11 11:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] >> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM >> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) >> Cc: ietf-dkim@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). /rolf ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Cc: ietf-dkim@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 -MSK ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
[ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
> 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
