OK... there hasn't been anything more on this thread for a week, so
it's time to tally. And I'm afraid the tally tells us little more
than what we had:
Include the informative note: 3
Do not include it: 4
No opinion: 5
This doesn't make for rough consensus in any direction.
I'm inclined, as chair, to say that, lacking rough consensus to
include it, we should not include it. That might go against the
"least harm" approach... but I think it's the most reasonable choice
at this point.
I'll give the three who voted to include (Jim, Scott, and Al), a final
comment. If you can't convince more people that it would be actively
harmful not to have such an informative note, I think we have to move
ahead with the draft without it.
Barry (as chair)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html