IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [domainrep] Charter adjustments

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 02 September 2011 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 5130421F91FF for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 21:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.015
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.417, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 qzlzfh1Bf9xs for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 21:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623E621F919A for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 21:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 21:42:48 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:42:47 -0700
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] Charter adjustments
Thread-Index: AcxpEKxbYECapMJMTsyo2uZCv8EzTgAGeoAg
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFA34@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF9B6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E5DF0A9.1070404@sonnection.nl> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF9C1@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E5E5682.5090505@sonnection.nl> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF9E0@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <361FE09A-ABC4-4C08-A99E-2AA8328ECE27@guppylake.com>
In-Reply-To: <361FE09A-ABC4-4C08-A99E-2AA8328ECE27@guppylake.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFA34EXCHC2corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Charter adjustments
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:41:14 -0000

I've updated the charter using this suggestion.

Anyone else, before I ping our AD?

From: Nathaniel Borenstein [mailto:nsb@guppylake.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 6:36 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Charter adjustments

On Aug 31, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:


This conflates some important things.  Portability is irrelevant to mechanism, for example; it has to do with the choice of the expressed reputation (and is thus part of the vocabulary), not the protocol by which it's delivered.

I prefer the current text.  Is there other feedback?


If you think portability is irrelevant to mechanism, you should compare the design of, say, a portable infant crib with a crib designed to stay in one place.

I like the idea of making it clear that the format's included.  How about

"Both the mechanism and the reputation data type...."

v2.41.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status