This text inappropriately makes a normative requirement on reputation
systems. Reputation
systems are explicitly outside of the scope of our charter. As well they
should be as there
has been no discussion about reputation systems may or may not find
useful, let alone
require, from DKIM.
Mike
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
In reviewing the errata (Update) draft, the IESG expressed concern that a
reader
could miss that there is a potential for software changes due to the change
in
the specification. Indeed, some IESG readers and others did believe there
was
no software change needed.
To clarify things, without producing text that makes integration into the
base
document a challenge later, a modification to the Introduction is proposed.
I'm
circulating it to the mailing list to be sure that there are no land mines in
its interpretations.
If the proposed changes causes you particular heartburn, please explain your
concern in detail.
Thanks.
d/
Existing Introduction text:
This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for
having differing -- and therefore non-interoperable --
interpretations of how DKIM operates.
This update resolves this confusion. It defines new labels for the
two values, clarifies their nature, and specifies their relationship.
Proposed text:
<t>This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for
making different interpretations between the two identifiers and may
lead to interoperability problems. A signer could intend one to be
used for reputation, and have a non-reputation intent in setting the
value in the other. However the assessor might choose the wrong value
and produce an unintended (and inaccurate) reputation assessment.</t>
<t>This update resolves that confusion. It defines additional,
semantic
labels for the two values, clarifies their nature and specifies their
relationship. More specifically, it clarifies that the identifier
intended for reputation lookups (such as white lists) by the
assessor is the value of the "d=" tag. However, this does not
prohibit message filtering engines from using the "i=" tag, or any
other information in the message header, for filtering decisions.
</t>
<t>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for
reputation assessment a software change to using the d= tag is
intended.
</t>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html