Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

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
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[e-mail]> 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
>