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>
WFM.
Barry, as participant
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html