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

Thanks for your review, Roni. The Gen-ART reviews by you and the rest of the team are essential for me to do my work. And thank you authors for writing a clear and useful document.

I must say that like Roni, I had some trouble with the document classification. It did read more as an informational document, and I think you could have referenced it with informational references. That being said, I do not see a danger where the document classification would somehow lead to misunderstanding somewhere, and if the authors want to refer to the terms defined in this document in a normative manner that is OK too. As a result, I took a "No-Objection" position for the document's approval in tomorrow's IESG telechat.

Jari

On Sep 7, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> My understanding is that you can have a downref to an informational document as long as it is mentioned in the writeup and in the IETF LC. This is not a reason to make this document a standard track document if it should  be informational.
> Roni
>  
> From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 07 September, 2013 10:41 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: draft-ietf-repute-model.all@tools.ietf.org; ietf; General Area Review Team
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08
>  
> Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay.
>  
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art