Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

Thanks, for the response. It looks good.

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Donald, thanks for your comments.  Replies inline.
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Minor Problems:
>>
>> Section 1:
>>   The last sentence of the first paragraph could be read to imply that
>> lack of authentication is the primary cause of spam. In this era of
>> botnets, I don't think that's true. Perhaps "... leads to spam,
>> phishing, and other attacks." should say "... makes spam, phishing,
>> and other attacks even easier than they would otherwise be." or
>> something like that.
>
>
> OK.
>
>> Section 4.1.1:
>>   My guess is that the values of a "Rating" are floating point in the
>> range 0.0 to 1.0 but it doesn't actually say that... If so, why isn't
>> the example "1.0" said to indicate "exact agreement" or the like
>> instead of "strong agreement"? Would 2.0 indicate "very strong
>> agreement".
>
>
> Right, the range is actually spelled out in the media-type document, where
> ABNF is provided.  I'll add that here as well.
>
>>
>> Section 5:
>>   This section seems in some ways like the heart of the document but
>> is also seems a bit blurry. Even at a high level, I would think that
>> there could be an explicit cardinality associated with these bullet
>> items. That is, it should say for each (or for all in the case it is
>> the same for all of them) if they can be omitted, whether or not they
>> must occur at least once, and if they can occur multiple times.
>
>
> I've added "at least the following data" since a basic response will include
> all of those.  Additional values might be present in a response within a
> given application space.  This is spelled out more normatively in the
> media-type document.
>
>>
>>   Is "application context" the same as what quality is being rated? I
>> would think not. For example, couldn't the application be "restaurant
>> recommendation" and then couldn't there be, say, four ratings, one for
>> food quality, one for price, one for decor, and one for service? If
>> so, why isn't what the rating measures an additional bullet item or
>> part of the rating score item? On the other hand, the rating score
>> item says "overall rating score" implying there can only be one...
>
>
> In your hypothetical example, the application context would be "restaurant",
> and the assertions possible would be "food-quality", "price", "decor", and
> "service".  A different rating would be returned for each of those, as
> requested by the client.
>
>>
>>
>> Section 6:
>>   Suddenly, in this section, for the first time, we have the
>> capitalized word "Target". Why isn't this defined in Section 4 on
>> terminology and definitions? I suppose it means something like the
>> pair of identity of the entity being rated and the application
>> context?
>
>
> We don't use "Target" anywhere else, but rather use "subject", so I've
> changed it to that and de-capitalized all of them.  There's no need to
> introduce a new term so late in the document.
>
>>
>> Trivia:
>>
>> Section 1:
>>   In paragraph 3 the definition of "reputation" uses the word
>> "estimation" in an uncommon way that might confuse some readers. I
>> think it could use something like the word "esteem" instead. The word
>> "opinion" could also be used but would require minor corresponding
>> changes. This occurs within quoted text that looks like it is copied
>> from somewhere else. If so, shouldn't that source be referenced?
>
>
> I got it from a dictionary, namely
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reputation. It looks like that's
> based on the 2013 Random House dictionary.  I'll add a citation.
>
>> Section3:
>>   The Figure 1 footer should be on the same page as the figure.
>
>
> Is there a way to force that in xml2rfc?

I don't know. I use nroff where it is simple to do such things.

>> Section 4.1:
>>   In the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph at the end of page 7, I
>> would strongly prefer "specify" to "define" but that might be a
>> personal quirk.
>
>
> Done.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

> Thanks again,
>
> -MSK