Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 13 July 2013 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39E31F0D36 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cr8tJLUKt9un for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063FC21F9E01 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id m6so1316528wiv.14 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=c0Kdq6+wwd97QcorH1IhcSKPu5ZR9dyh+xZGg0HjSGQ=; b=0aqXgR8te70hrG4t1ySxSGfERjdjIeuGa/6cOpbnKNGe7OLpfG9B0Uj6QaSOGOH4wA hbeh4FUtGb3SwO2P2kCEjjcC8t+gd5XENSLaZFAe7J5n58KLEtaE0YebeJK+zHOmQqdQ Um9aEQOef5Mlk5y9vcCjiI+4DIhua/ZLRS43vGh+fb51FV3WDLYDckOBdm2HKnlSmcaM G9oMILog04pCAKe2PFozXR+R3NI5tw7mtagBBsti4f/coangAOfnd+uO8BGYn43UE6IC FhkUAZCnd07EodVHSblZOjk/Ob73XYff4YCAaw8BixKfyJjkEDizu0Mnbm952BKzbvem Zyeg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.89.231 with SMTP id br7mr3431958wib.19.1373691741166; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307122350160.81901@joyce.lan>
References: <20130713020137.14506.qmail@joyce.lan> <51E0BF62.90605@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307122350160.81901@joyce.lan>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYWadFeWAWBGawMiQhBPKb+QmvfNcoi8BeXisR+8KRzvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba25543616d04e15d88d8
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:02:23 -0000

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:59 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> (1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved"
>>>>
>>> I guess it's OK, but it seems awfully specific to spam filtering.
>>>
>>
>  I suspect you are confusing core mechanism with specific application.
>>
>> For each application, such as restaurant reviews, the semantics of the
>> rating are defined by the application.
>>
>
> The text on page 4 says that a high well behaved score is a hint not to
> take a bad rating too seriously.  (If that's not what it's supposed to
> mean, the text needs to be rewritten.)
>
> Like I said, that seems awfully specific to spam filtering.  I think I
> understand what it means in an online abuse context, but I don't understand
> what it means anywhere else.
>
> The other optional attributes seem adequately generic, but this one is
> just odd.
>
>
In the restaurant context, I would probably set a high value for it if it's
a restaurant that's well-known in the community as a stand-up place that
will fix problems when they happen versus one that doesn't care much about
what its ratings are.

Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a
local incident versus a trending problem.

-MSK