[ietf-dkim] Let's avoid "opaque"
aiverson at spamresource.com
Mon Feb 9 10:25:02 PST 2009
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Jim Fenton <fenton at cisco.com> wrote:
> 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 "opaque" in 4871bis, or in
> an erratum if things go that way. Instead, state exactly what the
> significance of various fields is, e.g., "the local-part of the i= value
> MAY have no significance to other than the signer, and may not be
> depended upon by the verifier in the absence of other information
> provided by the signer".
After further review of the existing wording, and having posted at
least one cite to the word "opaque" used in a similar context, I'd
like to propose that we move forward with the wording as-is.
Dave, this strikes me as ready to go...My thought is that it's
appropriate to give a last call for feedback and then move it forward.
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
More information about the ietf-dkim