Dave CROCKER wrote:
Meant to include this, for completeness:
Replacing 'reputation' with 'assessment', here's the latest version:
I'm better with this version; thanks. I do feel that we're effectively
using "assessment" as a proxy for "the R-word" which goes back to the
concern I voiced long ago about not requiring the verifier to pass on
other values including i= if they're present. It seems to me that this
is effectively dictating the operation of the (wink wink, nudge nudge)
assessor. But I won't belabor that, since it seems that the rough
consensus felt otherwise.
The important point now is responding to Cullen's concerns that the new
text doesn't clarify things adequately.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html