Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

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

Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay.

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was asked to review the 08 version but my comments from 07 were not
> addressed and I did not see any response. So I am resending my previous
> review****
>
> As for making it a standard track document, I am not sure since it looks
> to me as an overview and not standard. And there is no normative language
> in the document.****
>
> Roni Even
>

It was changed to Proposed Standard because of rules around referencing it
normatively from other documents that are seeking Proposed Standard status.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.****
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
> may receive.****
> [...]
> Minor issues:****
>
> I was wondering why the “Further Discussion” section 9.3 is part of the
> security section. I think it should be a separate section.
>

The wording of 9.3 is meant to be security-specific, but that's buried in
the word "use".  I'll make it more clear.


> ****
>
> Nits/editorial comments:****
>
> Section 3 the end of 2nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”****
>
>
Fixed.

Thanks again,

-MSK