On 5/9/2011 1:14 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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=.
In its entirety, yes.
My guess is that there is some benefit in a piece like (or the same as) l=, but
the important difference is that it would be fit into an integrated mechanism,
rather than just sit there piecemeal.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html