On 2/17/09 12:36 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
a), please.
For example, Eliot's draft does not attend to the basic requirement for
specifying what is primary output. (Or, for that matter, distinguishing output
from protocol internals.)
And that is because it is not a basic requirement; and in fact hits
against our charter limit of discussing reputation systems. You've
cleverly couched this debate in terms of interoperability, but what are
we really talking about? It's the input to reputation services, no
matter what terminology you throw at the matter.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html