Re: [domainrep] Charter adjustments

Johan Pouwelse <peer2peer@gmail.com> Wed, 31 August 2011 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <peer2peer@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 C893921F8B00 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.464, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 hhdwnF3ZXC9L for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF2D21F86B1 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so502992gxk.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=22U3jUMBB9VlXTquljBjOx4zOBIK5/4SNRXqi+Scb0M=; b=ASd9SRHnJENmBwDW4YvkLLyH2UCvc2l7fTou+R/2FzbbL3NOxerryQGYTsLhNDEgP8 JnrEqpNnUw5PvJ6VOPQbW+ESXdKlR209Y1zMgsZsYX7hOII1Ux8gOkYpw5j9tToQ9NR4 y8Dc1IuG7847JeuYWJfzC+KD8onRIng6A41ws=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.172.12 with SMTP id u12mr58493wfe.10.1314785611278; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.44.17 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF9B6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF9B6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:13:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJYQ-fRYM8q=fDR_XD+KRtoBWDN547KV+OzWj8HzLFwdsgbBRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Johan Pouwelse <peer2peer@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:12:04 -0000

"looks good"

 -johan.

On 31/08/2011, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
> After some review by our sponsoring AD, I've made a few tweaks in the
> proposed charter.  Please provide any comments you may have, even if it's
> just a "looks good", preferably sooner rather than later.  They are pretty
> minor, but having such feedback on the record will help move things along.
>
> The full updated charter is still available at
> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/domainrep/repute-charter.txt; the diffs are
> below.
>
> Absent any major problems, we should be on an IESG telechat and the main
> IETF mailing list fairly soon.
>
> -MSK
>
>
> --- repute-charter	2011/08/14 02:52:38	1.16
> +++ repute-charter	2011/08/29 22:05:44
> @@ -74,16 +74,19 @@
>
>  	This working group will produce a set of documents defining and
>  	illustrating the requirement and defining mechanisms to satisfy it.
> -	Two mechanisms are proposed:
> +	Two mechanisms are on the table:
>
>  	* simple -- a reputation is expressed in a simple manner such as
> -		an integer
> +		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
> +		useful to an assessor, provided via an XML reply over HTTP
> +		(see draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-http)
>
>  	The mechanisms will be designed to be application-independent, and
> -	portable between reputation providers.
> +	portable between reputation providers.  The working group will
> +	consider these and may develop both or decide only one is needed.
>
>  	The group will also produce specifications for reporting reputation
>  	data from end-points (usually end users, such as someone clicking @@
> -128,6 +131,14 @@
>  	  compute reputations.  These are part of a back-end system, usually
>  	  proprietary, and not appropriate for specification as part of
>  	  a query/reply framework and protocol.
> +
> +	The initial draft set:
> +		draft-kucherawy-reputation-model
> +		draft-kucherawy-reputation-media-type
> +		draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-http
> +		draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-dns
> +		draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-udp
> +		draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity
>
>  Goals and Milestones:
>  	Mar 2012:	Informational document, defining the problem space
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>