Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10.txt> (A Media Type for Reputation Interchange) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:40:58 -0700

At 07:44 15-08-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Reputation Services WG (repute)
>to consider the following document:
>- 'A Media Type for Reputation Interchange'
>   <draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-08-29. Exceptionally, comments may be

 From Section 3.1:

    "expires:  A timestamp indicating a time beyond which the score
       reported is likely not to be valid.  Expressed as the number of
       seconds since January 1, 1970 00:00 UTC.  See Section 5 for
       discussion."

And Section 5:

   'A reputon can contain an "expires" field indicating a timestamp after
    which the client SHOULD NOT use the rating it contains, and SHOULD'

The "expires" field uses "HTTP-date".  It is easier to code for one 
timestamp format instead of two (see Unix timestamp in Section 3.1).

In Section 3.1:

   "An application service provider might operate with an enhanced form
    of common services, which might in turn prompt development and
    reporting of specialized reputation information."

I don't see anything actionable in the above.

Why was "specification required" chosen for the Reputation 
Applications Registry?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:05:24 -0700

> timestamp format instead of two (see Unix timestamp in Section 3.1).

By that I assume you mean the Expires field in the HTTP exchange, and not
this value.

An HTTP exchange can contain multiple reputons.  The expiration timestamp
might be different for each.

> I don't see anything actionable in the above.

Taken out of context, of course not.  The text that follows indicates that
the default set of reputon attributes might not be sufficient for
describing all of the information needed in a reputon for a given
application space.  It could be necessary to document additional attributes
and their syntaxes and semantics for those applications.  Those need to be
done in separate documents that register those applications.

> Why was "specification required" chosen for the Reputation Applications
> Registry?
>
>
As alluded to above, there can be quite a bit of information needed for an
application to be defined beyond the defaults assumed when a name is
registered.  There didn't seem to be any need to require such definition to
be in an IETF document, but it also seems as though more information than
what's needed with just FCFS or DE or the other lesser rules is appropriate
either.

-MSK

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:50:14 -0700

Hi Murray,
At 00:05 21-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>As alluded to above, there can be quite a bit of information needed 
>for an application to be defined beyond the defaults assumed when a 
>name is registered.  There didn't seem to be any need to require 
>such definition to be in an IETF document, but it also seems as 
>though more information than what's needed with just FCFS or DE or 
>the other lesser rules is appropriate either.

I'll suggest Expert Review here as it is a lesser barrier.  I'll 
defer to you on this.

Regards,
-sm