Just two thoughts on this issue, that I've not seen raised so far.
Dunno if they'll change anyone's positions.
1. Some people wouldn't see an important distinction between PS and DS
since more-or-less everyone has to implement the PS and few features,
once deployed, are totally deprecated. That might influence whether or
not you think its useful to remove it now or at DS. OTOH, if everyone
has to support simple regardless of PS vs. DS, then who cares? There's
no effect on interop.
2. There must be some probability that another body c14n scheme will
turn out to be more useful (e.g. the s/mime or pgp scheme). If so,
would it be good or bad to have relaxed in the PS RFC? Depends on your
guess as to the probabilities I suppose.
Regards,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html