Hi Roni,
I didn't see your previous review for some reason. I can't respond in full
now as I'm about to travel, but I will over the long weekend (unless Andrew
gets to it first).
Thanks,
-MSK
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I was asked to review the 08 version but my comments from 07 were not
addressed and I did not see any response. So I am resending my previous
review****
As for making it a standard track document, I am not sure since it looks
to me as an overview and not standard. And there is no normative language
in the document.****
Roni Even****
** **
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”****
** **
** **