I don't have a specific objection to the word reputation per se but assessment
is a more neutral term for this particular group so s/reputation/assessment/g
should work.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:34 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text for rfc4871-errata (resend)
Will somebody please tell the editor that this still violates our charter
since reputation is out of scope?
Thank you.
Mike
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
I do have a problem with the last paragraph:
<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>
and some of the text in the preceding paragraph because it attempts to
do exactly what the WG charter says we won't, specifically:
Ahh, right. That's the sort of land-mine I was afraid might need uncovering.
Thanks for catching this.
So...
Previous 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>
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>
<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 delivery to the assessor -- such as one that consults a
white list -- 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's header, for filtering decisions.
</t>
<t>For signers and verifiers that have been using the i= tag as the
primary value that is delivered to the assessor, 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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html