ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

2013-09-07 02:41:50
Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay.

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


It was changed to Proposed Standard because of rules around referencing it
normatively from other documents that are seeking Proposed Standard status.


****

** **

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.****
[...]
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.


The wording of 9.3 is meant to be security-specific, but that's buried in
the word "use".  I'll make it more clear.


****

Nits/editorial comments:****

Section 3 the end of 2nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”****


Fixed.

Thanks again,

-MSK
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>