[ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text for rfc4871-errata (resend)

[Dave CROCKER]

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> excellent.  that's certainly a simple enough way to resolve the concern.
> 
> d/
> 
> Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
>> I don't have a specific objection to the word reputation per se but
>> assessment is a more neutral term for this particular group so
>> s/reputation/assessment/g should work.


Meant to include this, for completeness:


Replacing 'reputation' with 'assessment', here's the latest version:

       <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 assessment, 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) 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