[ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-00
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Fri Jan 30 13:55:09 PST 2009
"Dave CROCKER" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
re: Jim Fenton's note:
>> section 1). I don't see how this is opaque unless you say that
>> names are opaque (which I'm not going to argue) but I find the word
>> "opaque" in this definition confusing.
> Opaque means that the DKIM specification imparts no semantics for
> two domain
> names that might appear to a human to be related. That a human
> might see a
> possible relationship and that they might program their software to
> advantage of it is entirely reasonable, but it is outside the spec.
I too was confused by the use of the word "opaque".
A dictionary definition of the word opaque shows:
1.a) Imprenetrable by light; neither transparent nor translucent
b) Not reflecting light
2. Imprenetrable by a form of radiant energy other than visible light
3.a) So obscure as to be unintelligible
b) obtuse of mind; dense.
Whilst you might consider me to be 3.b) for asking this question,
one of the definitions of opaque is the one used in the RFC?
Would the word "arbitrary" not be more suited for the meaning
Not wanting to beat a dead horse - if this has already been flogged,
please forgive me.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
More information about the ietf-dkim