IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 07 September 2013 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 27D4B21F9EBE; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 0TKFdD1IkcB3; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFD021F9DCF; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id t60so3795558wes.28 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nd1NvfHmj3vHBwycf3yrzro8paREXJ3kZHl44T8ytyY=; b=kClkNhs+qVHlPG+AlAWvBlhDP2WPF3cDSVtgox8p1z/aSriC53YouAR40qWe2NRVr2 KdeetE2vFoYKQgvgDz4hOPMPb2hC4bfcaFcKDDqDKiSoyeDb1qzLiz3F9bHYjREjyWpo JbtxlGvwpypqZFKVT2kjPhruAWg8WFrGrVPv4/MleXUhqk6UmJLFXZCOPcjosWO5AT9A I9kl7AGmPkG7AWXUaBJlXR643gloLOXWQzUv3RkOF00ICoV2MTDiQvXQFZofWotwKboU OUKgflSwXOoy50sclcm4SJOOVzyZyMIwHaaG3oqea7mhkVobKJrKkvgmDALW4wXu6arV kkcQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.183.51 with SMTP id ej19mr1235099wic.60.1378537480955; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.106.169 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5220B055.2000704@att.com>
References: <5220B055.2000704@att.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:04:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYPKmpTfm=dwgbd2bPED374aTsr1vaY24mrvggiW17vSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2409edcad8f04e5c5c442"
Cc: draft-ietf-repute-model.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@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 07:04:43 -0000

Hi Tony, thanks for the review.  Apologies for the long delay replying.


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:

>  I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
>
>
> Document:  draft-ietf-repute-model-08
> Title: A Model for Reputation Reporting
>
> Reviewer: Tony Hansen
> Review Date: 2013-08-29
> IESG Telechat Date: 9/12
> IETF Last Call Expires: LC for 07 expired on 2013-08-29, but 08 superseded that
>
>
> Summary:
> The document is ready for publication. Minor notes follow that can be fixed in AUTH48.
>
> The document describes a model for reputation services, particularly those being produced by the Repute WG. It follows the recommendations of RFc4101 for describing a protocol model, which requires answers to 1) the problem the protocol is trying to achieve, 2) the meaning of messages transmitted, and 3) important unobvious features of the protocol. This document accomplishes its goals quite well.
>
>
>
> ==== ORGANIZATIONAL COMMENT ====
>
> Section 3 "High-Level Architecture" starts with an extended example of where a reputation service would fit into an existing service. Finally, more than a page later, it starts describing the architecture that is supposed to be the topic of this section. I suggest that the section be split into two, with the beginning given the heading along the lines of "Example of a Reputation Service Being Used", and the "High-Level Architecture" heading moved right before the paragraph that starts "This document outlines". Alternatively, add subsection titles.
>
> Seems reasonable.  I'll do that in the next version.


>
> ==== MINOR NITS ====
>
> Changes below are marked with >>><<<.
>
>
All applied as well.

Thanks again,

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email