Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.)
Of course not, rewording is required.
Mr. Fenton provided a clear cut, easy to understand (IMO) single
statement:
"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".
Mr. Otis clearly highlight the delima:
What problem do you see this over-extended opaque assertion
solving, especially when it creates a problem where none had
existed.
You can not reach reasonable consensus if you continue to plead
ignorance of those you feel do not matter here.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html