Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-07

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:27:03 +0300

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-repute-model-07

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2013-8-20

IETF LC End Date: 2013-8-29

IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

I was wondering why the "Further Discussion" section 9.3 is part of the
security section. I think it should be a separate section.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 3 the end of 2nd paragraph "mechansisms" to "mechanisms"

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:47:54 -0500

As per a suggestion in another thread: Would you also say that this 
draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard? This is more 
architectural overview than protocol per-se, but I do think it is 
necessary to the understanding of the other protocol documents (hence it 
is a normative reference), and I think it can progress with the rest.

(I haven't seen an objection to doing so in the other Last Call thread, 
so unless there is a good reason not to, I'm inclined to re-initiate the 
Last Call for Proposed Standard instead.)

pr

On 8/21/13 8:27 AM, Roni Even wrote:
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive.
>
> Review Date:2013--8--20
> IETF LC End Date: 2013-8--29
>
> IESG Telechat date:
>
> I was wondering why the "Further Discussion" section 9.3 is part of 
> the security section. I think it should be a separate section.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Section 3 the end of 2^nd paragraph "mechansisms" to "mechanisms"
>

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478