On 3/26/2025 7:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
A terminology nit, but it's going to come up in the future so I'd like
to put it out there early before we have a big re-editing job to do:
In practical terms, people do not say header field.
But the spec does. And always has. For a very long time.
With the hindsight of that long view, I wish it didn't. Doesn't matter
that it made sense, originally.
However, absent a /compelling/ reason change I suggest retaining the
formal form, at least in the spec. At the least, it avoid the
derivative requirement that would be created, to find a name for the
collection of the fields. (Yeah, we could say "the collection of the
headers", but, well...)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
