Volume tends to hide many important data points at the domain level.
Many times its just 1-2 domains (and their implementation) that are
showing how specs are being read/used.
My view in reading this complex document, many parts has become
"sparse" with its technical information. For the available tags to
consider, most readers will use 3.5 as a quick guide and that is where
the first warning should be highlighted. It isn't highlighted unless
you do a search for "l=" to see any other references for it.
So if we are not going to deprecate it and talk mostly about
discouraging usage, the "Quick Guide" 3.5 tags sections should be the
very first place with this important "tidbit."
Barry Leiba wrote:
We are spending an awful amount of time on this l= issue, whether it should
be pulled, keep it and explaining how bad it is and discourage usage.
Agreed. I would like to deprecate it. But we don't have consensus
for going that far, and I think we're too late in the process to get
ourselves mired in that. What we're doing now is just short of
deprecating it -- saying that, well, you really shouldn't oughta use
it, without being normative.
The 6% using "l=" needlessly is a red flag.
Yep. Happily, we (where "we", here, mostly means Murray, but some
others as well) are collecting stats.
It's possible, later, for someone to create an individual submission
for "DKIM l= Considered Harmful", or some such, and perhaps if/when
someone ever moves DKIM to full Standard we can actually deprecate l=.
Barry, as participant
--
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