Will somebody please tell the editor that this still violates our charter since reputation is out of scope?
Thank you. Mike Dave CROCKER wrote: > Jim Fenton wrote: >> I do have a problem with the last paragraph: >> >>> <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> >>> >> and some of the text in the preceding paragraph because it attempts to >> do exactly what the WG charter says we won't, specifically: > > > Ahh, right. That's the sort of land-mine I was afraid might need uncovering. > Thanks for catching this. > > So... > > Previous 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> > > > New 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 verifier might choose the wrong > value > to deliver to the assessor, thereby producing 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 delivery to the assessor -- such as one that consults a > white list -- 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's header, for filtering decisions. > </t> > > <t>For signers and verifiers that have been using the i= tag as the > primary value that is delivered to the assessor, 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
