Specification of reputation systems would be in violation of the
charter, but e.g. the recently completed dkim-overview draft does
talk about the "boundary" between DKIM and assessment systems.
Certainly the intent of this text (rephrasing the Introduction in
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata) was *not* to broaden the scope of the
working group... so perhaps the 1st paragraph should talk about
"assessment" instead of "reputation"?
Dave Crocker wrote:
New 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 verifier might choose the wrong value to
deliver to the assessor, thereby producing an unintended (and
inaccurate) reputation assessment.</t>
Would "...one to be used for assessment, and have a non-assessment
intent in setting the value in the other. However, the verifier might
choose the wrong value to deliver to the assessor, thereby producing
an unintended (and inaccurate) assessment result." be more accurate?
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html