--On July 12, 2006 2:08:12 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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".
In the spirit of using plain English, I think "reputation" is better,
because that's the term that the press is using and hence what people
know. However I agree with EKR that we need to be clear about what
we really mean here, since after all the press often misuses the word
in ways that we don't intend.
So, I'll 50% reverse my previous statement and say that "reputation"
does need a definition, but it doesn't have to have a formal,
normative definition. In fact, trying to come up with a normative
definition /would/ be out of scope.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html