On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 02:37:13PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote: > > For example, DKIM-REPUTE product designers would need to consider > > SPF reputons product models. Simple text as follows can resolve the > > integration consideration with little SPF fanfare the draft > > obviously tried to avoid: > > Why should the framework document contain details of how various > particular reputation services interact? If you want a discussion of > reputation-service-interaction mechanisms in the draft, that's one > thing. If you want to talk about how SPF and DKIM interact, then I > think this is probably the wrong draft. > > The document we're talking about here only describes a general architecture. DKIM is present in the document for illustration purposes only; it doesn't limit REPUTE to being used by DKIM. The more protocol-specific stuff, which already does include SPF support, is in draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers. -MSK
