[ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01

[Eric Allman]

--On July 13, 2006 7:14:35 AM -0400 Dave Crocker <dcrocker at bbiw.net> 
wrote:

> Moving the community to a common vocabulary involving vetting is
> not DKIM's job.
>
> It's a battle that should be fought by the folks in the vetting
> business.
>
> DKIM should use a generic term that isn't one of the terms of art.

I don't think I agree with this.  First, since by your own argument 
these terms aren't properly defined, using yet another poorly defined 
term to mean the same thing doesn't exactly seem to be improving the 
situation.  Also, since the overview is supposed to be an informative 
document that paints the scene for reading the rest of the documents, 
using a term that is likely to make people scratch their heads works 
against the goal.

I propose instead that we use some term that resonates with readers, 
but (informally) define it in the document to minimize 
misunderstanding.

eric