I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this
draft (for background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-repute-model-08
Title: A Model for Reputation Reporting
Reviewer: Tony Hansen
Review Date: 2013-08-29
IESG Telechat Date: 9/12
IETF Last Call Expires: LC for 07 expired on 2013-08-29, but 08 superseded that
Summary:
The document is ready for publication. Minor notes follow that can be fixed in
AUTH48.
The document describes a model for reputation services, particularly those
being produced by the Repute WG. It follows the recommendations of RFc4101 for
describing a protocol model, which requires answers to 1) the problem the
protocol is trying to achieve, 2) the meaning of messages transmitted, and 3)
important unobvious features of the protocol. This document accomplishes its
goals quite well.
==== ORGANIZATIONAL COMMENT ====
Section 3 "High-Level Architecture" starts with an extended example of where a
reputation service would fit into an existing service. Finally, more than a
page later, it starts describing the architecture that is supposed to be the
topic of this section. I suggest that the section be split into two, with the
beginning given the heading along the lines of "Example of a Reputation Service
Being Used", and the "High-Level Architecture" heading moved right before the
paragraph that starts "This document outlines". Alternatively, add subsection
titles.
==== MINOR NITS ====
Changes below are marked with >>><<<.
==== Section 1, paragraph 5 starting with "A full trust"
I think this sentence would read better as follows, both for readability and to
match the style of the surrounding sentences:
OLD: Some need only produce a basic rating, while others need to provide
OLD: underlying detail.
NEW: Some need >>to<< only produce a basic rating, while others need to provide
NEW: >>the<< underlying detail.
==== Section 2, paragraph 1 starting with "The basic premise"
I think this sentence would read better with the introduction some additional
punctuation.
OLD: Typically client and service operators enter into
OLD: some kind of agreement during which some parameters are exchanged
OLD: such as the location at which the reputation service can be reached,
OLD: the nature of the reputation data being offered, possibly some client
OLD: authentication details, and the like.
NEW: Typically client and service operators enter into
NEW: some kind of agreement during which some parameters are exchanged>>>,<<<
NEW: such as>>>:<<< the location at which the reputation service can be reached,
NEW: the nature of the reputation data being offered, possibly some client
NEW: authentication details, and the like.
==== Section 3, paragraph 5 starting with "It provides"
I think there is a typo in this sentence and the word "one" should be "done".
OLD: (Although not typically thought of as a 'transport', the DNS
OLD: provides generic capabilities and can be thought of as a mechanism
OLD: for transporting queries and responses that have nothing to do with
OLD: Internet addresses, such as is one with a DNS BlockList [DNSBL
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-model-08#ref-DNSBL>].)
NEW: (Although not typically thought of as a 'transport', the DNS
NEW: provides generic capabilities and can be thought of as a mechanism
NEW: for transporting queries and responses that have nothing to do with
NEW: Internet addresses, such as is >>>done<<< with a DNS BlockList [DNSBL
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-model-08#ref-DNSBL>].)
==== Section 4.1, paragraph 2 starting with "Response Sets have"
I think this sentence should be parenthetical:
OLD: IANA registries are created in a separate document.
NEW: >>>(<<<IANA registries are created in a separate document.>>>)<<<
==== Section 9.3
I think this sentence reads better as follows:
OLD: Numerous other topics related to use and management of reputation
OLD: systems can be found in [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS].
NEW: Numerous other topics related to >>>the<<< use and management of reputation
NEW: systems can be found in [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS].