Thanks for your review, Roni. The Gen-ART reviews by you and the rest of the
team are essential for me to do my work. And thank you authors for writing a
clear and useful document.
I must say that like Roni, I had some trouble with the document classification.
It did read more as an informational document, and I think you could have
referenced it with informational references. That being said, I do not see a
danger where the document classification would somehow lead to misunderstanding
somewhere, and if the authors want to refer to the terms defined in this
document in a normative manner that is OK too. As a result, I took a
"No-Objection" position for the document's approval in tomorrow's IESG telechat.
Jari
On Sep 7, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Roni Even
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,
My understanding is that you can have a downref to an informational document
as long as it is mentioned in the writeup and in the IETF LC. This is not a
reason to make this document a standard track document if it should be
informational.
Roni
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 07 September, 2013 10:41 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-repute-model(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf;
General Area Review Team
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08
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
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art