Eric Allman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did a quick read of -overview yesterday and on the whole liked > it. It's a bit rough, lots of spelling/grammar errors, obviously > written by different people, needs sections filled in, etc., but it > seemed like it covered the critical areas. I'll try to read it in > more detail soon. > > However, there was one sub-thread between EKR and Eliot that left me a > bit confused: > > --On July 11, 2006 10:18:50 PM +0200 Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> The owner of the domain name being used for a DKIM signature >>>>> is declaring that they are accountable for the message. This >>>>> means that their reputation is at stake. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I understand what reputation means in this context. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I believe it would be pedantic to define a commonly used English >>>> word. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I disagree. >>> 1. It's a technical term in the security community, and since >>> there's no reputation service being proposed.. >>> >> >> The language was plainly used. You are, however, raising two >> separate issues: use of the term and whether reputation services >> are in scope. They are clearly not. However, that doesn't mean >> that DKIM cannot be used by such services, and it certainly doesn't >> mean that we must never refer to them. This having been said, I >> still believe the plain language reading connotes an obvious >> meaning.
I have a conflict with DKIM so phoning this in... > I thought that the Overview document was supposed to be a > non-normative introduction (ok, "overview") of DKIM: motivations, > context, how the pieces fit together, how it fits into the bigger > picture. If I'm right, then > > (1) using "plain English" is just fine, and hence "reputation" doesn't > need a formal (normative) definition; and > (2) reputation /is/ in scope of this document, since it speaks to the > bigger picture. > > Have I misunderstood the intent of -overview? If it is to be a > normative document then I will suddenly have a /lot/ of comments.... There are two potential meanings of "reputation" here. 1. The "plain English" one of "you look bad". As I noted previously, your reputation is already on the line when you forward e-mail, since people can manually verify that you sent it. This is how black-hole lists work. DKIM doesn't add this feature. 2. The technical sense of "reputation services", but as I mentioned earlier, this is out of scope for DKIM, and of course it's not plain English... -Ekr _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
