ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Let's avoid "opaque"

2009-02-09 02:17:43
Jim,

I'm confused why you think that debating a vocabulary term should take 
precedence over getting consensus on the semantics. If you want the semantics 
changed, surely that is far more important than a particular word used to 
describe the semantics that you want changed.

In general, document modification works best with proposals for what should be 
added, removed or modified.  So far, you are saying remove all uses of a 
particular word, but are not offering specific replacements, thereby leaving a 
void in the document, should your proposal succeed.

Group discussion of document changes proceeds best when tied to specifics, and 
in particular specifics that leave the document complete.

Please suggest specific changes.  And a generic "remove all uses of word x" is 
not really a specific change, since it leaves the document incomplete.  (Try 
reading the existing text after only removing all occurrence of word x and see 
when the document still makes sense.  It won't.)

d/


Jim Fenton wrote:
I'd like to see if there is consensus for my proposal to remove the term
before suggesting specific language.

I do expect that my language has different semantics that are currently
are in the draft.  But I don't think that the semantics of the language
in the current draft are well enough understood by many to see that
distinction.

-Jim

Dave CROCKER wrote:
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>