I thought that the Overview document was supposed to be a non-normative
introduction (ok, "overview") of DKIM: motivations, context, how the
pieces fit together, how it fits into the bigger picture. If I'm right,
then
(1) using "plain English" is just fine, and hence "reputation" doesn't
need a formal (normative) definition; and
I had the same reaction, when initially reading the EKR/Lear exchange.
The problem is that we are, nonetheless, within a technical realm. While the
document probably has a wider audience than -base or -ssp, the -overiew document
can't claim to exist in isolation. So we need to be careful that we not create
confusion.
Frankly, I'd prefer to use a non-technical term, when intending a non-technical
meaning. That's why I usually say "vetting" or "vouching".
(2) reputation /is/ in scope of this document, since it speaks to the
bigger picture.
correct.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html