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:
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 2^nd paragraph "mechansisms" to "mechanisms"
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478