Re: [domainrep] Charter adjustments

["Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[e-mail]>]

On 8/31/11 8:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:43 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [domainrep] Charter adjustments
>>
>> I agree it's a convenient place to begin, but I really fail to see the
>> added value in the context of a charter document.
> Charter documents, and BoFs, have to describe the starting point accurately.  That's why this stuff is in there.
>
>> If we want to keep it, may I suggest to slightly change it, to make
>> more
>> explicit that these are mere examples, nothing more:
>>
>> Old text:
>>
>> 	* simple -- a reputation is expressed in a simple manner such as
>> 		an integer, provided via TXT records in the DNS
>> 		(see draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-dns)
>>
>> 	* extended -- a response can contain more complex information
>> 		useful to an assessor, provided via an XML reply over HTTP
>> 		(see draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-http)
>>
>>
>> New text:
>>
>> 	* simple -- a reputation is expressed in a simple manner, such as
>> 		an integer provided via TXT records in the DNS
>> 		(see draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-dns)
>>
>> 	* extended -- a response can contain more complex information
>> 		useful to an assessor which, for example, can be provided via an XML reply over HTTP
>> 		(see draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-http)
> That's such a minor change that I've made it.  I see what you're trying to convey but I don't think it's a very big deal at this point.
>
>> What you say here is entirely correct. But that doesn't mean the charter
>> isn't still mixing up the two interpretations of the word 'mechanism'.
>>
>> [Granted, I approved the old text, so I presumably didn't notice it when
>> I read the original charter text.]
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> Old text:
>>
>> 	Two mechanisms are on the table:
>>
>> 	[...]
>>
>> 	The mechanisms will be designed to be application-independent, and
>> 	portable between reputation providers.  The working group will
>> 	consider these and may develop both or decide only one is needed.
>>
>> New text:
>>
>> 	Two combinations of mechanism and reputation data type are on the table:
>>
>> 	[...]
>>
>> 	The combinations of mechanism and reputation data type will be designed
>> 	to be application-independent, and portable between reputation providers.
>> 	The working group will consider these and may develop both or decide only
>> 	one is needed.
> 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.

The current text reads "The mechanisms will [...], and portable between 
reputation providers". In your answer to my mail you write: "Portability 
is irrelevant to mechanism". Ergo?

/rolf