Both terms are bad, the term practices is much worse. Policy is the term of art used to describe what the SSP record is intended to do. It is directly analogous to WS-Policy.
Practices in the context of PKI refers to the legal side of the problem. There is certainly a history of deprecating the role of policy mechanisms in the IETF. Hence my attempt to create a policy language that is absolutely minimal without constraining utility. Using the term 'practices' instead of policy is not going to fool anyone, the objection is to the idea, not the name. The term practices is higly loaded and has its own meaning and will cause even more people to shudder. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:48 AM > To: Frank Ellermann > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments > > > > Frank Ellermann wrote: > > What is the precise > > Message-ID where one of the Chairs stated that it's the > consensus of > > this WG to rename "policy" to "practises" ? > > There isn't one afaik. As Doug said that predates the WG. > > But once reqs-01 is out, we're planning to move back into > using the issue tracker, so you can of course raise this as > an issue if you like, and it'll get resolved that way. > > S. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
