Re: [domainrep] Drafts updated

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, I like the approach. I plan on doing the same basic thing in the WEIRDS documents that have the same dependencies.

Scott

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:13 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [domainrep] Drafts updated

I gave it some thought and I think security considerations for REPUTE can be grouped under two headings:

1) Those that are attacks on the building blocks we're using (HTTP, URI syntax, MIME, etc.);

2) Those that are attacks on either reputation consumers or reputation service providers.

For (1), these issues are all well-documented in the RFCs that define those building blocks.  For (2), we have a new document under development that is a collection of all of that material.

Accordingly, I've made the various Security Considerations documents point to those places, rather than copying text from various places into the individual documents which runs the risk of sending divergent messages to readers.

Is this acceptable?

-MSK