> 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
I had the same reaction, when initially reading the EKR/Lear exchange. The problem is that we are, nonetheless, within a technical realm. While the document probably has a wider audience than -base or -ssp, the -overiew document can't claim to exist in isolation. So we need to be careful that we not create confusion. Frankly, I'd prefer to use a non-technical term, when intending a non-technical meaning. That's why I usually say "vetting" or "vouching". > (2) reputation /is/ in scope of this document, since it speaks to the > bigger picture. correct. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
