Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Jim Fenton wrote: > I'm still not convinced that adding acronyms makes the document clearer, > but AUID seems fine to me. +1 -- J.D. Falk Return Path Inc http://www.returnpath.net/ ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:51:04 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: >On 3/12/09 3:56 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> Is anyone /against/ using AUID? >> > >In so far as we cannot avoid a new acronym, I am not against AUID. > >Eliot + 1 Scott K ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
On 3/12/09 3:56 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Is anyone /against/ using AUID? > In so far as we cannot avoid a new acronym, I am not against AUID. Eliot ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Dave CROCKER: > Is anyone /against/ using AUID? > > d/ > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Barry Leiba > > wrote: > >>> Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the > >>> acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken > >>> connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? > >> WFM. > > > > +1 +1 Looks good to me. Wietse ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
I'm still not convinced that adding acronyms makes the document clearer, but AUID seems fine to me. -Jim Dave CROCKER wrote: > Is anyone /against/ using AUID? > > d/ > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? >>> WFM. >>> >> +1 >> ___ >> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to >> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html >> >> > > ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Siegel, Ellen wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Barry Leiba >> wrote: Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? >>> >>> WFM. +1 -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Barry Leiba > wrote: >>> Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the >>> acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken >>> connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? >> >> WFM. > > +1 > +1 ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Is anyone /against/ using AUID? d/ Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the >>> acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken >>> connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? >> WFM. > > +1 > ___ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the >> acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken >> connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? > > WFM. +1 ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
> Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the > acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken > connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? WFM. Barry ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tony Hansen wrote: > Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the > acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken > connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? +1 for the easy fix. Cheers, Steve ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Somewhat whimsically but wholly serious: Would simply changing the acronym to AUID (for Agent or User IDentifier) avoid mistaken connotations associated with User Agents (UAs)? Tony Jim Fenton wrote: > Barry Leiba wrote: >> Actually responding to the thread this time, as a participant... >> >> > It's not confusing if the meaning is related. The term "user or > agent" is the actual semantics of this value. I read that as > equivalent to "user agent". > It's not. A user agent is an application that acts on behalf of the user but is not the user. >>> UAID is an identifier. In computing contexts such as DKIM, all identifiers >>> refer to machine-based entities, possibly ones that are representing humans. >>> >> The only concern I have here is that because "user agent" has a >> specific connotation, there could be confusion about what happens to >> it when a user uses more than one UA. Suppose I use Gmail's web >> client, Mulberry, Apple Mail, and Thunderbird, all at different times, >> and all sending mail as through Gmail's >> email infrastructure. (In fact, that *is* the case.) Should the UAID >> that Gmail sticks in the signature always be the same, because it's >> just me, using these client programs interchangably? Should it be >> different for all of them, because they're all different UAs? Should >> the webmail version use one UAID, and the others use another, because >> there are only two submission mechanisms involved (web vs SMTP to port >> 587)? >> >> I can see that someone implementing or configuring a system wouldn't >> be sure how to set this up, and at least part of the confusion would >> be due to interpretation of "user agent". >> > > I share this concern, because I use at least three MUAs (at Cisco, that > is...more at home). We don't want to give the impression that the > choice of MUA is necessarily reflected in the i= value. >> I also agree that we should spend too long on this point... again, >> speaking as a participant. >> > > Yes, by all means let's spend too long on this! :-) > > -Jim > > ___ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Barry Leiba wrote: > Actually responding to the thread this time, as a participant... > > It's not confusing if the meaning is related. The term "user or agent" is the actual semantics of this value. I read that as equivalent to "user agent". >>> It's not. A user agent is an application that acts on behalf of the >>> user but is not the user. >>> >> UAID is an identifier. In computing contexts such as DKIM, all identifiers >> refer to machine-based entities, possibly ones that are representing humans. >> > > The only concern I have here is that because "user agent" has a > specific connotation, there could be confusion about what happens to > it when a user uses more than one UA. Suppose I use Gmail's web > client, Mulberry, Apple Mail, and Thunderbird, all at different times, > and all sending mail as through Gmail's > email infrastructure. (In fact, that *is* the case.) Should the UAID > that Gmail sticks in the signature always be the same, because it's > just me, using these client programs interchangably? Should it be > different for all of them, because they're all different UAs? Should > the webmail version use one UAID, and the others use another, because > there are only two submission mechanisms involved (web vs SMTP to port > 587)? > > I can see that someone implementing or configuring a system wouldn't > be sure how to set this up, and at least part of the confusion would > be due to interpretation of "user agent". > I share this concern, because I use at least three MUAs (at Cisco, that is...more at home). We don't want to give the impression that the choice of MUA is necessarily reflected in the i= value. > I also agree that we should spend too long on this point... again, > speaking as a participant. > Yes, by all means let's spend too long on this! :-) -Jim ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Barry Leiba wrote: > The only concern I have here is that because "user agent" has a > specific connotation, there could be confusion about what happens to > it when a user uses more than one UA. Suppose I use Gmail's web > client, Mulberry, Apple Mail, and Thunderbird, all at different times, > and all sending mail as through Gmail's > email infrastructure. (In fact, that *is* the case.) Should the UAID > that Gmail sticks in the signature always be the same, because it's > just me, using these client programs interchangably? I think this mostly confuses implementation with architecture. Simple test: Are you using/getting different email addresses when you use these different modes of access? Probably not. That said, note that John Levine's description of his signing model nicely provides an example of having different UAID values, depending on the author's means of access. In this case, he's decided that there is in fact some real utility in making exactly the distinction you raise. So it's plausible, but no it's not necessary. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Actually responding to the thread this time, as a participant... >>> It's not confusing if the meaning is related. The term "user or >>> agent" is the actual semantics of this value. I read that as >>> equivalent to "user agent". >> >> It's not. A user agent is an application that acts on behalf of the >> user but is not the user. > > UAID is an identifier. In computing contexts such as DKIM, all identifiers > refer to machine-based entities, possibly ones that are representing humans. The only concern I have here is that because "user agent" has a specific connotation, there could be confusion about what happens to it when a user uses more than one UA. Suppose I use Gmail's web client, Mulberry, Apple Mail, and Thunderbird, all at different times, and all sending mail as through Gmail's email infrastructure. (In fact, that *is* the case.) Should the UAID that Gmail sticks in the signature always be the same, because it's just me, using these client programs interchangably? Should it be different for all of them, because they're all different UAs? Should the webmail version use one UAID, and the others use another, because there are only two submission mechanisms involved (web vs SMTP to port 587)? I can see that someone implementing or configuring a system wouldn't be sure how to set this up, and at least part of the confusion would be due to interpretation of "user agent". I also agree that we should spend too long on this point... again, speaking as a participant. Barry ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms (an academic discussion)
Just on this point: > Do you think that that label would have obvious and useful meaning to > an average administrator who is trying to configure DKIM modules? I > don't. I'm not even sure it's "really what is being described here" > because the label is sufficiently far from language used in DKIM > discussions. Note that I'm not saying your assessment of meaning is > wrong, but that it isn't obvious to me that it is right. For an > acronym, that ought to count against using it. I like a choice that isn't even close to any of the other terms. That way they're easily separable. I fear it's inevitable that Identifier has to be in there somewhere, or I'd get rid of that too. But as UA really has taken up cognitive space, it alone is worth shooting. Again, if you don't like the term I picked, that's okay. I really ought to not have presented one. What I meant was simply this: the value of i=, or r= for that matter, is meant to be private or opaque. My problem was that I really REALLY really wanted to avoid OID ;-) Eliot ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Humorous (maybe) and meaningless (definitely) side-comment, here,
because we need to maintain levity as well as progress:
> My personal preference for best acronym used by the
> IETF is still IPoLPDN. I leave it as an exercise to the reader or the
> reader's memory to understand how that was pronounced.
Back in the early days of IBM's TOOLS system and "the forums" (see my
blog entry at http://staringatemptypages.blogspot.com/2009/03/leiba-lament.html
for more background on that), the program used for posting forum
entries prefaced quotes from earlier entries with the email address of
who said it -- "LEIBA at YKTVMV", for instance. One guy modified the
program to resolve the address from his personal address book ("NAMES
file") if it could, so it would say something like "Barry Leiba"
instead. Much more friendly, he thought.
Only, not everyone agreed. For one thing, people were used to it the
other way, and they could more readily see who said what if it always
appeared the same. For another thing, the guy didn't always put
people's *names* in his NAMES file. Lots of them were nicknames, such
as "August Founder" or "Great Descriptivist Satan", and that wasn't
always helpful. But he insisted on using his version.
Someone else started referring to the guy's practice as "Let the
Buggers Eat My NAMES File Entries and Like It", which got abbreviated
as "LtBEMNFEaLI". We decided that it would be pronounced "light-beam
feelie", and that it sounded like a mantra.
Thank you for listening. I now return you to the Argument Clinic
sketch, already in progress.
Barry
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
Eliot Lear wrote: >> It's not confusing if the meaning is related. The term "user or >> agent" is the actual semantics of this value. I read that as >> equivalent to "user agent". > > It's not. A user agent is an application that acts on behalf of the > user but is not the user. UAID is an identifier. In computing contexts such as DKIM, all identifiers refer to machine-based entities, possibly ones that are representing humans. In other words, DKIM only ever deals with, or refers to, agents. >>> 2. If you're going to add acronyms, let them be ones that either can >>> be easily pronounced without having to spell them out. >> Like "TCP" and "SNMP" and "BGP"? >> >> I prefer nicely pronounceable acronyms, too, but the absence of that >> pleasant feature doesn't create a veto. > > And I'm not proposing a veto, Dave. I'm saying, 'yuck, but okay' Oh. Missed the 'okay'. Thanks for the clarification. > If you prefer, and I'm NOT standing on my head about this one, you could > go for something like Private-Context-IDentifier (PCID), because I > think that is really what is being described here. Do you think that that label would have obvious and useful meaning to an average administrator who is trying to configure DKIM modules? I don't. I'm not even sure it's "really what is being described here" because the label is sufficiently far from language used in DKIM discussions. Note that I'm not saying your assessment of meaning is wrong, but that it isn't obvious to me that it is right. For an acronym, that ought to count against using it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Acronyms
On 3/11/09 4:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Eliot Lear wrote: >> 1. UA has an existing connotation that people will grab onto. This >> in itself is mnemonically confusing. > > It's not confusing if the meaning is related. The term "user or > agent" is the actual semantics of this value. I read that as > equivalent to "user agent". It's not. A user agent is an application that acts on behalf of the user but is not the user. And it is used to refer the MUA. > > The basic UA/MTA model is based on the concept of delegation. Since > DKIM was created to delegate the task of claiming responsibility (from > the author to the entity doing the signing), I see it as a) consistent > with the underlying constructs of Internet mail and b) warranting > terminology for the "user or agent" component being similar. > > >> 2. If you're going to add acronyms, let them be ones that either can >> be easily pronounced without having to spell them out. > > Like "TCP" and "SNMP" and "BGP"? > > I prefer nicely pronounceable acronyms, too, but the absence of that > pleasant feature doesn't create a veto. And I'm not proposing a veto, Dave. I'm saying, 'yuck, but okay' precisely because I really don't think anyone sees as desirable semantic email ping pong to come up with a better term. Also I realized I didn't give the other half of that "either" above which is "use short 2 or 3 letter acronyms". My personal preference for best acronym used by the IETF is still IPoLPDN. I leave it as an exercise to the reader or the reader's memory to understand how that was pronounced. > > If you have a more pleasant acronym to suggest -- one that maintains > appropriate semantics -- by all means do so. Those of us who > developed the SDID/UAID acronyms also were not happy with the > aesthetics of the choice, but this was the best we could come up with. If you prefer, and I'm NOT standing on my head about this one, you could go for something like Private-Context-IDentifier (PCID), because I think that is really what is being described here. Eliot ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
