Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 15 July 2013 18:46 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 265BD21E8127 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:33 -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 QaWWWJXhRyAp for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A61C21E8124 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id l18so10335654wgh.26 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -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=MCskCNB3uwIZa7BL6s/Z/PydhqsGHpBr4x1i8VUGp0M=; b=QbW763Ep9ImUYx56N3P52vRYa7IJBt9pIPnMlrh2y2Sa4nxCIw1EWHuA9xqWorSpQ5 wCjs/A54VnSXkfrLVfhFSw3OrxCHZXWx3Pi8piuQi9QgNG5C9BNCTEqLPvbAdAqjl5ia zCRL8m01RKr/WcZ6hAqAjyf6DAzvVPrpSsLuEVMn1JvEQOedoGMmJoMkjdZaOlu9dG6j harPLlZpNkNxNqb2ogcKAbq1Jh0P4ymx7XtbEYIVXb2WrFje7aa7DytsnntyOQ8YAuRG y0gJlqwjTmLU0RYHTayjxx6+RoBbO6Xe1IGT1gDmOZ25FVMpRw9q9xBbem6CmQCjIASV tX0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.48.116 with SMTP id k20mr33274734wjn.23.1373913991321; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaWAmhcvt_2DUMShk=_V7PRvfZujQDFVHy3YY7y348Z-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307130131020.62942@joyce.lan> <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwaWAmhcvt_2DUMShk=_V7PRvfZujQDFVHy3YY7y348Z-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ6URZVNrvbuOaMbnBPYhLbiuBwQ+K6hYdxw9Yd4uSSCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba975e6679d0904e1914744
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: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:46:33 -0000

John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse the XML):

        <t hangText="normal-rating:"> An indication of what the reputation
               provider would normally expect as a rating for the subject.
               This allows the client to note that the current rating is
               or is not in line with expectations. </t>

Any objections?

-MSK



On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<superuser@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307130131020.62942@joyce.lan> you write:
>> >> Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a
>> >> local incident versus a trending problem.
>>
>> How about this:
>>
>> well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the
>> long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a
>> floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive.  If the entity's
>> rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is
>> likely an aberration.  For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high
>> well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible
>> network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved
>> score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between
>> hosting providers.
>>
>>
>>
> Close.  The second sentence isn't quite what's intended; if the
> "well-behaved" score is high, then a client can expect a unusual rating
> (high or low) to be short-lived.  I don't think there's a need to tie the
> two values together as your text has done.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> -MSK
>