--On July 13, 2006 7:14:35 AM -0400 Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html