On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan
<ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com>wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 02:37:13PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
For example, DKIM-REPUTE product designers would need to consider
SPF reputons product models. Simple text as follows can resolve the
integration consideration with little SPF fanfare the draft
obviously tried to avoid:
Why should the framework document contain details of how various
particular reputation services interact? If you want a discussion of
reputation-service-interaction mechanisms in the draft, that's one
thing. If you want to talk about how SPF and DKIM interact, then I
think this is probably the wrong draft.
The document we're talking about here only describes a general
architecture. DKIM is present in the document for illustration purposes
only; it doesn't limit REPUTE to being used by DKIM. The more
protocol-specific stuff, which already does include SPF support, is in
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers.
-MSK