On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Jim Fenton <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I have been hearing quite a bit of discussion and confusion on this list
about the word "opaque". Since the stated intent of an erratum or
revision to the specification is to remove a point of confusion, it's
important not to introduce a new one.
I strongly suggest that we not use the word "opaque" in 4871bis, or in
an erratum if things go that way. 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".
After further review of the existing wording, and having posted at
least one cite to the word "opaque" used in a similar context, I'd
like to propose that we move forward with the wording as-is.
Dave, this strikes me as ready to go...My thought is that it's
appropriate to give a last call for feedback and then move it forward.
Regards,
Al Iverson
ExactTarget
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html