----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Leiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "IETF DKIM pre-WG" <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter
> > I really like your suggestion in > > http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001359.html that we move > > away from the word "policy" and use "declaration". Should we do that > > here as well? > > Thank you. I looked at the text here, and there are only two places > where we say "policy", and I can't see a good way to turn either of > those directly into "declaration" without changing what they mean. > The first says, "and to publish 'policy' information about how it > applies those signatures." I could make it, "and to publish declarative > information about how it applies those signatures," or simply, "and to > publish information about how it applies those signatures." What do you > (plural) think? > > The second one is in the definition of the deliverable, so I could > change that from, "A standards-track specification for DKIM policy > handling," to "A standards-track specification for DKIM signing > declarations." That changes it significantly, and it worries me to > change the charter text so much -- and the actual content of the document > is quite up-in-the-air right now anyway. > > Maybe we should leave the charter text as it is, and wait until we start > beating on the document before we decide whether we want to call it > "policy" or "declaration" or "bad thing that we've decided not to do > after all." Good idea! <g> My comment: What is the reason again for changing it in the first place? Establishing a common ground between administrators and implementators? Or to add strength to the protocol? Is "policy" too lose of a term? an administrative prerogative? As oppose to "practice" or "declaration" which to me, I can see how it connotates a common setup or common expected mode of operation between systems? hmmmm, why not "mode?" Lets see: "domain.com has a EXCLUSIVE DKIM practice" "domain.com has a STRONG DKIM declaration" "domain.com has a WEAK DKIM policy" "domain.com is operating in a NEUTRAL DKIM mode" Mode is more like policy -- too lose, too system specific. If we are trying to add some "strength" to DKIM so that systems follow the specs, that I guess I can see for something other than policy. But I like policy because we have been using for long to describe a systems local mail policy. It fits right in with everything else and in the end I think customers will understand policy better. I vote - lets move on. :-) -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
