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> -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html