The document never says who "the user" is, and I see no advantage to
language that implies that there is one.
I've scanned through the doc. The word 'user' appears in a variety of
contexts, including formal labels that were approved by the working group.
Some of the uses define their meaning adequately, IMO, and some could perhaps
be a bit more clear.
Where the document mean "author" I suggest it say author. Where the document
means "end user who is causing a signature to be created" it should probably
say something like that.
I'm not sure what other clarifications make sense, but it doesn't look as if
we should try to avoid the word entirely.
My concern is that a lot of mail is created by software without the direct
involvement of any individual person, e.g., transactions, autoresponders,
and such. I'd like to avoid an implication that each signature can be
traced back to a person.
Should this section reiterate all of the stuff in 4871, or since the
IANA registry already exists, just say what if anything is different
since 4871? I don't know which is better. ...
Has anyone asked IANA which they prefer? This situation, a new RFC
replacing the one that defined a registry, surely has come up before.
R's,
John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html