Dave CROCKER wrote:
OK. Pasi: Dave has proposed a change to the rfc4871-errata draft in response to a concern from the IESG. Can you clarify what concern the IESG has this is attempting to address? I'll repeat my original question below since you may have missed it. -Jim Jim Fenton wrote: Can you clarify what IESG concern this is attempting to address? I looked at the IESG evaluation record for the draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/3084/) and didn't see anything that this change would address, except possibly Cullen's comment that he asked three developers what changes to a 4871 implementation might be required and they told him "this document was completely incomprehensible and they have no idea what needs to change."I don't see this modification as addressing that comment. -Jim 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