On 07/Jan/11 21:58, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM > specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more generic > portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current working > acronym is DOSETA.
I'm embarrassed to raise such a trivial issue, but couldn't it be done the other way around? That is, keep the name DKIM for the core spec and invent some other name for its application to RFC 5322. This way * the "DKIM-Signature" name remains fully justified, * it will be more meaningful for iSchedule to say they use DKIM than to mention DOSETA, and * DOSETA would not have to define a "_domainkey" keyword that is not part of its title. > DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or > organization > that owns the signing domain to claim some responsibility for a message by > associating the domain with the message. I'd also s/Mail/Message/ (Messages, Messaging, or similar) in the acronym expansion. Such change may be used to convey the extent of the split. JM2C _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
