Sean Shen wrote: > Hi, Jim, > I just read the draft and feels not sure about some point: > In the last paragraph of section 1, you said: > " In order to permit useful reputation accrual, the value of the > reputation tag will typically need to be stable over a relatively > long period of time. The use of a tag which is independent of other > identifiers (such as email address) supports this need by providing > continuity, even when other identifiers change. " > After reading this paragraphy, I found I was not sure about to whom the tage > belong. You said it's independent of email address. From the first example > case in section 1, it looks like each tag belongs to a user. But a user > might have both premium and free accounts which have different potential of > abuse, as you mentiond in the section example case. > The purpose of such a tag is to provide a finer level of granularity than a > domain, but it's not clear which level it is. >
Sean, The use cases given in the draft are examples of how the r= value can be applied. I intentionally picked use cases that make use of different levels of granularity to describe a range of ways that r= could be used. Different domains business models, and will therefore suggest different ways of doing finer-grained reputation. Some domains may put the email address, or part of it, in the r= tag, and that's OK for them to do. Others will probably put something else, perhaps not quite that fine-grained, in r=. It's up to them. The useful thing is that the reputation algorithm or service doesn't need to know what the business model is in order to use the r= value; it's just a suggestion on the part of the signer. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
