Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-model-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:56:29 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : A Model for Reputation Reporting
	Author(s)       : Nathaniel Borenstein
                          Murray S. Kucherawy
                          Andrew Sullivan
	Filename        : draft-ietf-repute-model-02.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2012-06-15

Abstract:
   This document describes a general architecture for a reputation-based
   service and a model for the exchange of reputation information on the
   Internet.  The document roughly follows the recommendations of
   RFC4101 for describing a protocol model.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-model

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-model-02

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-repute-model-02

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:50:24 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-repute-model-02.txt

We uploaded this revision to the model draft today.  The draft
includes changes to accomplish the following things, all of which were
discussed in Paris:

    1.  A general editorial pass.  

    2.  Addition of text to say that details of query parameters were
    to be application-specific.  There was quite a bit of back and
    forth at the mic in Paris (thanks to the Meetecho people for an
    excellent recording, BTW), and it was hard for me to determine
    what was concluded, but since no text on this topic came to me by
    now I figured everyone must think this is application-specific.

    3.  Addition of the Privacy Consideration section.  This was in
    response to the microphone comment about cases where reputation
    data ought not to be public.

Things that were _not_ included:

    A.  A general overview of the protocol, including exhaustive
    motivation and so on.  There was some discussion of the
    desirability of this in Paris, but the conversation seemed to
    suggest this draft was not the place for it.

    B.  A reworking of the draft to add more general-purpose
    mechanisms, to be recycled by specific applications.  Cf. (2)
    above.

I believe this document is ready to be parked, given the parameters I
think we've been working within.  I'd appreciate reviews.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]