[domainrep] Repute WG Shepherd Document Writeup: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-05

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 16 May 2013 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B1711E811B for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOynYA6w-odf for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6890F11E8110 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4GJVGsC005165 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 May 2013 12:31:19 -0700
Message-ID: <519533F6.60306@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:31:02 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <5195309C.2020608@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5195309C.2020608@gmail.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5195309C.2020608@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com []); Thu, 16 May 2013 12:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-repute-query-http.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] Repute WG Shepherd Document Writeup: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-05
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:31:29 -0000

This is the formal shepherding submission for this draft.

I'm separately posting a review of the document.


> == Document Writeup ==

> === 1. Summary ===
> Who is the document shepherd?

   D. Crocker

> Who is the responsible Area Director?

   P. Resnick

> Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's
> abstract is usually good for this), and why the working group has
> chosen the requested publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).

      Once there is a validated identifier associated with an object or 
activity, it is possible to develop and communicate its behavioral 
"reputation".  The current draft is part of an effort to define a 
reputation query/report mechanism. This draft specifically defines the 
query/response protocol and its conveyance over HTTP.

> === 2. Review and Consensus ===
> Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the
> working group and external parties, and explain in a general sense
> how much of the interested community is behind the document.  Explain
> anything notable about the discussion of the document.

    The document has gone through multiple drafts, over a period of time,
that were discussed in the working group. Discussion was mild and
supportive, with no significant controversy. The working group 'style'
was mostly of a small, collaborative set of active participants.

    The specified protocol is reasonable simple and flexible, tailored to
the semantics of requesting reputation-related attributes about a 

> === 3. Intellectual Property ===
> Confirm that each author has stated that their direct, personal
> knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been
> disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.  Explain briefly the
> working group discussion about any IPR disclosures regarding this
> document, and summarize the outcome.

    The author is highly experienced with IETF work and the document IPR
standard is the default.  No IPR concerns are anticipated.

> === 4. Other Points ===

    None noted.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking