Jim Fenton wrote:
I have a particular problem with the term "User Agent Identifier (UAID)"
because it doesn't necessarily represent a user agent -- it could, for
example, represent a mailing list manager. I greatly prefer the term
"signing identifier" (which replaces signing identity) because it covers the
range of use cases more completely.
One of the tricks in choosing labels is to make sure they each have useful
meaning, but also that they are different enough to avoid confusion. Labels
are
intended to have mnemonic benefit.
The two labels in the current Errata draft are defined as:
Signing Domain Identifier (SDID)
...
the identity claiming responsibility for the introduction of a message into
the mail stream.
and
User Agent Identifier (UAID)
...
the user or agent on behalf of whom the SDID has taken responsibility.
Note that the latter definition is taken from the existing RFC4871 text:
Identity of the user or agent (e.g., a mailing list manager) on behalf of
which this message is signed
So the UAID term reflects the exact language of RFC 4871 that defines the
identifier: user or agent.
If the term is changed to "signing identifier" it will be semantically wrong
and
mnemonically confusing. Wrong because it's not the domain doing the signing,
per the definition of SDID, and confusing because the term is almost identical
to SDID.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html