RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Sat, 07 September 2013 08:07 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9E921E8050; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 4jl4YKYXrmla; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A001021E8053; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ez12so1734681wid.9 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 01:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=A4QfFijl5hWCZhjDJr5MPwNHUX2xaQ1u/FYYHb4uiH0=; b=oiW2+0QdMiTz4eoGuCNCMIWl9mk8kdtdAv+UL87PO3Pei8M6uW8QBHPAmO+C0rVPoc BmTFuR7tMI17/swlkJXZlL24lifa1KOOtVPFaaAGjLUTBdkd9HSbVjrcFYH4f8tgFS6f 1FXmMUfJE5T04M6jd3FLlNlUfm2P0a8BDQCfyMPz71i8y+htBRw74rogyoPFM6E/S7Xj /DNDewim5P/yMHmlfQpQJ2WF6L+e4O1F3WDNKm2wy+mM9cOLfd3JGBpstC0pwsnSpNgm eWa7RdR9gWgHE3jxborIO74lb3NZKQpk3TFMuhJf6x7CWxlL1PAwty08aAuqYuyJrwQS K7wA==
X-Received: by 10.180.206.9 with SMTP id lk9mr1409910wic.26.1378541269802; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 01:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-79-181-232-77.red.bezeqint.net. [79.181.232.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om9sm1899307wic.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Sep 2013 01:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <00bc01cea63d$186aee80$4940cb80$@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaGtYcEiGa+V061R6cpBJfvGou5BBs70HN-2c3ph=+uCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaGtYcEiGa+V061R6cpBJfvGou5BBs70HN-2c3ph=+uCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:05:09 +0300
Message-ID: <057201ceaba0$fa538e20$eefaaa60$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0573_01CEABBA.1FA1B080"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQM1w3JriUePdI1w1WfpA+XlnlEv8QHw+RCCltwyvdA=
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-repute-model.all@tools.ietf.org, 'ietf' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:07:53 -0000
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 LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08 Roni Even
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-… Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rep… Jari Arkko