This text inappropriately makes a normative requirement on reputation
systems. Reputation
systems are explicitly outside of the scope of our charter. As well they
should be as there
has been no discussion about reputation systems may or may not find
useful, let alone
require, from DKIM.
Mike
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Folks,
>
> In reviewing the errata (Update) draft, the IESG expressed concern that a
> reader
> could miss that there is a potential for software changes due to the change
> in
> the specification. Indeed, some IESG readers and others did believe there
> was
> no software change needed.
>
> To clarify things, without producing text that makes integration into the
> base
> document a challenge later, a modification to the Introduction is proposed.
> I'm
> circulating it to the mailing list to be sure that there are no land mines in
> its interpretations.
>
> If the proposed changes causes you particular heartburn, please explain your
> concern in detail.
>
> Thanks.
>
> d/
>
>
> Existing Introduction text:
>
>
>> This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for
>> having differing -- and therefore non-interoperable --
>> interpretations of how DKIM operates.
>>
>> This update resolves this confusion. It defines new labels for the
>> two values, clarifies their nature, and specifies their relationship.
>>
>>
>
>
> Proposed text:
>
> <t>This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for
> making different interpretations between the two identifiers and may
> lead to interoperability problems. A signer could intend one to be
> used for reputation, and have a non-reputation intent in setting the
> value in the other. However the assessor might choose the wrong value
> and produce an unintended (and inaccurate) reputation assessment.</t>
>
> <t>This update resolves that confusion. It defines additional,
> semantic
> labels for the two values, clarifies their nature and specifies their
> relationship. More specifically, it clarifies that the identifier
> intended for reputation lookups (such as white lists) by the
> assessor is the value of the "d=" tag. However, this does not
> prohibit message filtering engines from using the "i=" tag, or any
> other information in the message header, for filtering decisions.
> </t>
>
> <t>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for
> reputation assessment a software change to using the d= tag is
> intended.
> </t>
>
>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
