IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [domainrep] [-1, 1] vs [0, 1] (was Re: Comments on draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 10 November 2011 19:55 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 252B921F8B65 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.297, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 Loh1YMtDvnoJ for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B762021F8B64 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:55:38 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:55:37 -0800
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] [-1, 1] vs [0, 1] (was Re: Comments on draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity)
Thread-Index: Acyf4gHUnce04lsKTZqpR7brGjDKHQAAFdZw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14F7D@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20111025120447.5155ba24@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14CD6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <147F7F0A-E5D4-40E3-A3B2-50DC2617F7F8@guppylake.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14D6B@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <E69C8DF0-5450-45B1-AE43-35FB5D19419B@guppylake.com> <20111110094314.20cc1b03@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14F7A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4EBC2AF1.2050409@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EBC2AF1.2050409@att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [domainrep] [-1, 1] vs [0, 1] (was Re: Comments on draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity)
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: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:55:39 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:50 AM
> To: domainrep@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [domainrep] [-1, 1] vs [0, 1] (was Re: Comments on draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity)
> 
> > John Levine suggested making the SAMPLE-SIZE parameter optional.  I
> > think that's probably reasonable, especially if for some reason the
> > service doesn't want to tell you that.  But I'm inclined to say this
> > confidence parameter should always be there.  Others?
> 
> +1 to always having the confidence parameter
> +1 to making the sample size optional

Also, we already have a reporting parameter called "rater-authenticity", which is an expression of whether or not the reputation provider has confidence that the subject is genuine.  Could this be defined more clearly?  Or do we still need it at all?

The current text says:

        <t hangText="RATER-AUTHENTICITY:"> The level of confidence in that
                identity being genuine, expressed as a floating-point
                number between 0 and 1 inclusive. </t>

Perhaps "confidence" replaces this?  Or are they orthogonal?

-MSK

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