Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I'm confused why you think that debating a vocabulary term should take
> precedence over getting consensus on the semantics. If you want the semantics
> changed, surely that is far more important than a particular word used to
> describe the semantics that you wan
+1. Thank god someone had the nerve to speak up.
Beside the fact it is being used in conflictive ways, I just love it
when a "new word" gets into ones vocabulary that they are compelled to
use it even when not 100% understood to the layman. Just consider, if
a reader has to take the time to
I'd like to see if there is consensus for my proposal to remove the term
before suggesting specific language.
I do expect that my language has different semantics that are currently
are in the draft. But I don't think that the semantics of the language
in the current draft are well enough underst
Jim,
I'm confused why you think that debating a vocabulary term should take
precedence over getting consensus on the semantics. If you want the semantics
changed, surely that is far more important than a particular word used to
describe the semantics that you want changed.
In general, document
A new version of the DKIM Development/Deployment/Operations doc is now
available for your reading enjoyment. Much of it has undergone a
considerable rewrite.
Let the comments and arrows commence.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
IETF I-D Submission Tool wrote:
> A new version of I-D, dra
Jim,
We've had quite a bit of confusion about a number of different things. Focusing
on a particular term might be missing the underlying confusion(s).
In any event, if you do not like particular language in the current draft,
please suggest specific changes. You give one example of specific t
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Development,
Deployment and Operations
Author(s) : T.
I have been hearing quite a bit of discussion and confusion on this list
about the word "opaque". Since the stated intent of an erratum or
revision to the specification is to remove a point of confusion, it's
important not to introduce a new one.
I strongly suggest that we not use the word "opaqu
