Eliot Lear wrote: >> It's not confusing if the meaning is related. The term "user or >> agent" is the actual semantics of this value. I read that as >> equivalent to "user agent". > > It's not. A user agent is an application that acts on behalf of the > user but is not the user.
UAID is an identifier. In computing contexts such as DKIM, all identifiers refer to machine-based entities, possibly ones that are representing humans. In other words, DKIM only ever deals with, or refers to, agents. >>> 2. If you're going to add acronyms, let them be ones that either can >>> be easily pronounced without having to spell them out. >> Like "TCP" and "SNMP" and "BGP"? >> >> I prefer nicely pronounceable acronyms, too, but the absence of that >> pleasant feature doesn't create a veto. > > And I'm not proposing a veto, Dave. I'm saying, 'yuck, but okay' Oh. Missed the 'okay'. Thanks for the clarification. > If you prefer, and I'm NOT standing on my head about this one, you could > go for something like Private-Context-IDentifier (PCID), because I > think that is really what is being described here. Do you think that that label would have obvious and useful meaning to an average administrator who is trying to configure DKIM modules? I don't. I'm not even sure it's "really what is being described here" because the label is sufficiently far from language used in DKIM discussions. Note that I'm not saying your assessment of meaning is wrong, but that it isn't obvious to me that it is right. For an acronym, that ought to count against using it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
