DKIM Chair wrote: > To those who voted against draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata: given, now, that > we > will be using draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata to move forward, and the other > choices are off the table, can you accept draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as > written? If not, will you post specific changes, in OLD/NEW format, that > would > make it acceptable to you? Acceptable changes must keep the sense of the > draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata document with regard to the new terminology. >
I can do that, but it will probably take a few days. But for clarification, is the new terminology cast in stone? 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. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
