Jim,
We've had quite a bit of confusion about a number of different things. Focusing
on a particular term might be missing the underlying confusion(s).
In any event, if you do not like particular language in the current draft,
please suggest specific changes. You give one example of specific text, but
don't anchor it to a particular place in the Errata draft and you do not
indicate what other changes you believe should be made.
In addition, you do not indicate that the word opaque is being used
incorrectly,
suggesting that the confusion might be more with the underlying issue than with
the term.
Indeed:
Jim Fenton wrote:
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".
specifies different semantics than are currently in the draft.
So you are not merely replacing a vocabulary term with an expanded form of text
that means the same thing.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html