Both terms are bad, the term practices is much worse.
Policy is the term of art used to describe what the SSP record is intended to
do. It is directly analogous to WS-Policy.
Practices in the context of PKI refers to the legal side of the problem.
There is certainly a history of deprecating the role of policy mechanisms in
the IETF. Hence my attempt to create a policy language that is absolutely
minimal without constraining utility.
Using the term 'practices' instead of policy is not going to fool anyone, the
objection is to the idea, not the name. The term practices is higly loaded and
has its own meaning and will cause even more people to shudder.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:48 AM
To: Frank Ellermann
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments
Frank Ellermann wrote:
What is the precise
Message-ID where one of the Chairs stated that it's the
consensus of
this WG to rename "policy" to "practises" ?
There isn't one afaik. As Doug said that predates the WG.
But once reqs-01 is out, we're planning to move back into
using the issue tracker, so you can of course raise this as
an issue if you like, and it'll get resolved that way.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html