Subject: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:19 -0700

Hello silent ones,

During AD Evaluation of the four REPUTE drafts that are ready to advance, a
number of editorial changes were made, but a couple that are substantive.
We need to give this group a chance to voice support or objections to them
before Pete starts the IETF Last Call.

The main changes since the WGLC versions are:

(1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved", with a
corresponding change in description.  The previous name and description
were sufficiently gelatinous that this change seems justified.  My own
implementation used this, but with a fixed value for all replies, so
changing it to be a different name with largely the same intended meaning
will not be harmful.

(2) Less of a major change: The "{service}" template substitution can now
only be replaced by the name of the service to which you're connecting.

I'm assuming these are innocuous and there won't be any objection to them.
It would be great if I could get some actual responses, especially from my
co-authors, but I'll take silence as golden as well.

Thanks, hope to see some of you in Berlin,

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:21 -0700

On 7/12/2013 1:49 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> changing it to be a different name with largely the same intended
> meaning will not be harmful.

Folks,

It would help the formalities of IETF process for you to look over the 
change in the document:

> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-repute-media-type-09

and post a note here with whatever comments you deem appropriate.

My own attempt at a substantive "ok" is:

    This nicely moves from a definition that was generic and 
behaviorally vague to one that is entirely behavioral and concrete.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jul 2013 02:01:37 -0000

>(1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved"

I guess it's OK, but it seems awfully specific to spam filtering.

My canonical application for repute was always restaurant reviews, so
I could have my resto finder retrieve ratings from Yelp, Zagat, or
Urbanspoon.

Does a high well-behaved score mean that if you go to a restaurant and
get food poisoning, you probably won't if you go back?

R's,
John

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:45:54 -0700

> get food poisoning, you probably won't if you go back?

I suspect you are confusing core mechanism with specific application.

For each application, such as restaurant reviews, the semantics of the 
rating are defined by the application.

d/

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Jul 2013 23:59:34 -0400

> For each application, such as restaurant reviews, the semantics of the rating 
> are defined by the application.

The text on page 4 says that a high well behaved score is a hint not to 
take a bad rating too seriously.  (If that's not what it's supposed to 
mean, the text needs to be rewritten.)

Like I said, that seems awfully specific to spam filtering.  I think I 
understand what it means in an online abuse context, but I don't 
understand what it means anywhere else.

The other optional attributes seem adequately generic, but this one is 
just odd.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:59 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> understand what it means in an online abuse context, but I don't understand
> what it means anywhere else.
>
In the restaurant context, I would probably set a high value for it if it's
a restaurant that's well-known in the community as a stand-up place that
will fix problems when they happen versus one that doesn't care much about
what its ratings are.

Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a
local incident versus a trending problem.

-MSK

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jul 2013 01:31:33 -0400

> local incident versus a trending problem.

Makes sense.  I think it could be clearer, will send text when I'm awake.

Regards,

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jul 2013 18:42:13 -0000

>> local incident versus a trending problem.

How about this:

well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the
long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a
floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive.  If the entity's
rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is
likely an aberration.  For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high
well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible
network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved
score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between
hosting providers.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700

> score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between
Close.  The second sentence isn't quite what's intended; if the
"well-behaved" score is high, then a client can expect a unusual rating
(high or low) to be short-lived.  I don't think there's a need to tie the
two values together as your text has done.

Does that make sense?

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -0700

John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse the XML):

        <t hangText="normal-rating:"> An indication of what the reputation
               provider would normally expect as a rating for the subject.
               This allows the client to note that the current rating is
               or is not in line with expectations. </t>

Any objections?

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:19:33 -0700

>                 or is not in line with expectations. </t>

John -- since my reading of this thread has you as currently holding
         the token...

As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues the I-D 
with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I can 
start the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg agreeing 
that the doc is done.

d/

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:37 -0700

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I can start
> the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg agreeing that the
> doc is done.
>
>
>
If you're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM, and
Pete was fine with it.  I can post a new document if you think we're agreed
enough here to move ahead.  Seems unlikely we'll get other responses at
this rate, unfortunately.

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:11 -0700

On 7/17/2013 5:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>     As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues the
>     I-D with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I
>     can start the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg
>     agreeing that the doc is done.
>
> If you're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM,
> and Pete was fine with it.  I can post a new document if you think we're
> agreed enough here to move ahead.  Seems unlikely we'll get other
> responses at this rate, unfortunately.

Dandy.  Make it so.

d/

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:33:57 -0400

Ah, ambiguity in the interpretation of "John, Pete and I". Salutation to
John, or a list of names that includes John.

Anyway, I was going to suggest "normally-well-behaved" as coming closest
to the intended meaning, but I think "normal-rating" is a good name too.

+1 to this change.

And +1 to sending this and the other docs on to the IESG.

    Tony Hansen

On 7/17/2013 8:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues
>     the I-D with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing
>     i's -- I can start the formal publication sequence, which begins
>     with the wg agreeing that the doc is done.
>
>
>
> and Pete was fine with it.  I can post a new document if you think
> we're agreed enough here to move ahead.  Seems unlikely we'll get
> other responses at this rate, unfortunately.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep