From dgq2011@gmail.com Wed Jul 18 06:28:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BAD21F8692 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:28:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33iQvltGVK9c for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C5921F867A for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1730809yen.31 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:29:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=HQr2R4cOoCGGyOcvX8oI3i9x2VgygCH6BdKHL9Ai3/o=; b=RYl4xnPxVq5c67VXTIaKU7JbpuWi2ppBAefByDxHsYb4P0ttuuW0kI5MYNuqdBGOsP 5Vhho9dioStzyL5RYKPFgLqOLRPcjaYl/tTk8NPYp5SgMzyW3nylWrIO0FHngeB8X9lT /Ew1ajTt4pEciEBCaWZ9xzEwL7b1gKEUHAC5KpjrpNWT5DzIEre62nfm2JLUAzXQmRee 4l1RK2hVa9N6MfQRB2uFWT5i2Y+IfzULV8roKIjFWOyYKL/xt5rNpRoiZz6Mav6gLyg2 gRLewuY8hvbjh8cE2bRqEsL5Uozrp5EaObl0MyoGbxdnKHwTppQa0OR95qEYikY4lqRR UfXQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.42.196 with SMTP id q4mr2002723igl.28.1342618161650; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.81.168 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:29:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:29:21 +0800 Message-ID: From: =?GB2312?B?tcu54sfg?= To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5396c60981b3804c51aa6c4 Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:28:33 -0000 --bcaec5396c60981b3804c51aa6c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, folks, I have read this draft and now I am confused by the RATING (whose definition is in section 3.1). Namely, If the RATING equals 0.5, the ASSERTION is supported or not by the RATER? Consider this case: Content-type: application/reputon+json { "reputon": { "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com", "rater-authenticity": 1.0, "assertion": "IS-GOOD", "rated": "Alex Rodriguez", "rating": 0.5, "sample-size": 50000 } } =85indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity " RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand. 2012/6/29 > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of th= e > IETF. > > Title : A Media Type for Reputation Interchange > Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein > Murray S. Kucherawy > Filename : draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2012-06-28 > > Abstract: > This document defines a media type for exchanging reputation > information about an arbitrary class of object. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-media-type > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03 > > A diff from previous version is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-media-type-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > --=20 Guangqing Deng --bcaec5396c60981b3804c51aa6c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, folks, I have read this dra= ft and now I am confused by the RATING (whose definition is in section 3.1). Namely, If = the RATING equals 0.5, the ASSERTION is supported or not by the RATER? Consider this c= ase:

Content-type: application/reput= on+json

{

&q= uot;reputon":

{<= /span>

&q= uot;rater": "RatingsRUs= .example.com",

&q= uot;rater-authenticity": 1.0,

&q= uot;assertion": "IS-GOOD",

&q= uot;rated": "Alex Rodriguez",

&q= uot;rating": 0.5,

&q= uot;sample-size": 50000

}<= /span>

}

=85indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0)= that the entity "RatingsRUs.examp= le.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez= may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authentic= ity" equals 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand.

2012/6/29 <= internet-drafts@ietf.org>

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies.
=A0This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of th= e IETF.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : A Media Type for Reputation Int= erchange
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Nathaniel Borenstein
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Murray S. Kucherawy
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.t= xt
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 12
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-06-28

Abstract:
=A0 =A0This document defines a media type for exchanging reputation
=A0 =A0information about an arbitrary class of object.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-media-t= ype

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-rep= ute-media-type-03


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep



--
Guangqing Deng

--bcaec5396c60981b3804c51aa6c4-- From superuser@gmail.com Wed Jul 18 10:37:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F48411E8149 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:37:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q85Gv+1aQR3a for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368D511E8147 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty7 with SMTP id y7so1630616bkt.31 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:37:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=ExZHvZ3bsNAHaRIKZClk3rT74VU3hfPp47zXdsjFvgQ=; b=OaHHlRqv/d1CEPrkmMbtJrg6O6wP60b9/rHqbTXgn1liiq7NHynZ7ood3WpMUjBeWY O/O4HD58RVygxbsaLeCU3M6lBQvGBJ7OB+JwfFlzOqMMeMjGUPLPfePFq1WZQpPxC4zL /KjZWk9jeb09DLAo1grXNggFvBdVMcDn8xbCaMTAXIfHT8x07PDenQEN7MqZ4y6OkCuf oJTaTdG8h0Jf9sSGkV2yYO956sSgSKU1Erbs2ytdGmOC9r6y8YB9sbKNHVA5H59tka0V AiElBHe9D6Qel5zCK0aTnu6UA+1mNQRTNp6x+Vi/dq4L7JsO3vVwrCVHfpZuEPd/aRKq F1Yg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.124.180 with SMTP id mj20mr4445921lab.43.1342633071267; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:37:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:37:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0434bfde46d04904c51e1fe9 Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:37:03 -0000 --f46d0434bfde46d04904c51e1fe9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, =E9=82=93=E5=85=89=E9=9D=92 wrote: > > Consider this case: > > Content-type: application/reputon+json > > { > > "reputon": > > { > > "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com", > > "rater-authenticity": 1.0, > > "assertion": "IS-GOOD", > > "rated": "Alex Rodriguez", > > "rating": 0.5, > > "sample-size": 50000 > > } > > } > =E2=80=A6indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity " > RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from > everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *goo= d* > or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals 0= .5 > but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand. > I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.com collected 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez. It is 100% certain that "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing. The data collected indicates that the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true. As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely that he's good. -MSK --f46d0434bfde46d04904c51e1fe9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, =E9=82=93=E5=85=89=E9=9D=92 <dgq2011@gmai= l.com> wrote:

Consider this case:

Content-type: application/reput= on+json

{

&q= uot;reputon":

{<= /span>

&q= uot;rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com",

&q= uot;rater-authenticity": 1.0,

&q= uot;assertion": "IS-GOOD",

&q= uot;rated": "Alex Rodriguez",

&q= uot;rating": 0.5,

&q= uot;sample-size": 50000

}<= /span>

}

=E2=80=A6indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0)= that the entity "RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez= may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authentic= ity" equals 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand.


I interpret that reply to = mean, literally: RatingsRUs.examp= le.com collected 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez.=C2=A0 It is 1= 00% certain that "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing.=C2=A0 T= he data collected indicates that the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good&quo= t; is 50% true.

As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not = good but also not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it&= #39;s 50% likely that he's good.

-MSK
--f46d0434bfde46d04904c51e1fe9-- From sca@andreasschulze.de Wed Jul 18 11:41:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEEA11E8132 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:41:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ideZhCvhq7Cy for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.andreasschulze.de (mout.andreasschulze.de [84.201.4.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99EB21F85B6 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:41:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: line deleted by mout X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.4 taro 3WcnKQ0s9kz2595 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andreasschulze.de; s=2012; t=1342636954; r=y; bh=u2A8sqOyPRd0/NyB9kDQKtO3/tJbV+W+xoUXMjzLAhM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; z=Date:=20Wed,=2018=20Jul=202012=2020:42:36=20+0200|From:=20Andreas =20Schulze=20|To:=20Jacob=20R=20Rideout=20< ietf@jacobrideout.net>|Cc:=20domainrep@ietf.org|Subject:=20Re:=20[ domainrep]=20rDNS=20identifiers|References:=20|In-Reply-To:=20 ; b=KoStIEgLXXJAYioS8pVTXTSBXDLn+JyrDi/UHPTYiUYIPu0wayUcn+MX3jK5Ni2St Qbj9mW1m1a+OJthvfe6bR6yk2rScU+ZMmm+Pt2lDjCVqZUrzyOEpzuqg8wBofWNhfk ESyZTJtTT1ksafjJ4VziRTo2WqWX90dxmBxhSQ44= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new-2.7.2 on taro.andreasschulze.de X-Received: line deleted by mout X-Received: line deleted by mout Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:42:36 +0200 From: Andreas Schulze To: Jacob R Rideout Message-ID: <20120718184236.GA18918@solar.andreasschulze.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Key-ID: 0xA7DBA67F X-GPG-Fingerprint: 14C1 39A8 CE6D 6BE0 28C6 5652 03B5 6793 A7DB A67F X-GPG-Public-Key: http://9645f8.dyndns.org/a7dba67f.asc X-Location: Germany, Earth User-Agent: mutt Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] rDNS identifiers X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:41:50 -0000 Am 29.06.2012 12:37 schrieb Jacob R Rideout: > Has anyone on the list considered the use of the IPv4 (or v6) PTR rDNS > value as an identifier? Or more strictly, a fully qualified domain name, that also > resolves to the queried IP address. Hi, MTX is (not very common) but much stricter. see http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ It's like a distributed selfmade whitelisting/reputation. Consider I have an IP-Address 192.0.2.1 assigned to my mailserver. I like to send mail. The receiver usually will reverse lookup that IP. 1.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. PTR -> outbound-mailer.example.org. That's all. Next the receiver *may* doublecheck the name resolv too. I personaly don't expect that the name resolv to 192.0.2.1. If I would force that on my MX I would lose too much legit mail. So the doublecheck is not practical for most people. So normal "dnscheck" ends with "sender has any rDNS". But I as a sender could do more. I could state that I *do* have control over the dns zone my PTR points to. That's usual if I own ip space. It's unusual for a dialup. I can provide an A record 1.2.0.192.mtx.outbound-mailer.example.org. = 127.0.0.1 If the receiver ask for that record he knows that - I control the rdns zone - I control the forward zone - I really spend my time to setup such records. The receiver may notice my much greater interest that my mails are delivered. In fact that is a nice scheme to intoduce someone as a mailsender. without having reputation history. It definitly drops sender how do not control rDNS. It does not pervent abusers to setup such records. But that ips could be blocked. That's a decision every receiver could meet for himself. (or use a central blacklist) Andreas From steve.allam@trustsphere.com Thu Jul 19 03:23:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F18621F86AF for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:23:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.07 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.07 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.528, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tj2sOv7mUMVt for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OB2-RMV3.realmail-asp.co.uk (obgw2.realmail-asp.co.uk [80.249.107.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8E121F869C for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:23:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=trustsphere.com; s=rmdkim; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=lgTr6+WTzPVa7hH0GUnk1Fgk2v+oMfIo9yUa0n/Ecio=; b=dDprfMo0+NgKdD/4y/JY7esZqS5eIEcRcMBUiQq2EzZKNwaSCNdzd/dWk4eRBKmHs1czVGq77iNlCNpzqCXVsiC6fvb5Q5ZAMgaeSCuuAU25m9udK6gYjvUfxsLxsT09OAiTQe613Ct1Rg66mQ0daDqGxe6/GmKSJxT8OMeu1EQ=; Received: from [116.12.149.130] (helo=cgpro.boxsentry.com) by OB2-RMV3.realmail-asp.co.uk with esmtp id 1Srnu3-000224-G9 for domainrep@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:24:15 +0100 Received: by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.4.0) with PIPE id 2042019; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:21:53 +0800 Received: from [88.97.130.81] (account steve.allam@trustsphere.com HELO [10.1.1.35]) by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPSA id 2042024 for domainrep@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:21:51 +0800 Message-ID: <5007E047.8010306@trustsphere.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:24:07 +0100 From: Steve Allam User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090601030105020104060007" X-LogiQ-query: 116.12.149.130/steve.allam@trustsphere.com/domainrep@ietf.org (I000 OK UNKNOWN.EXISTS ) X-RealMail-Category: UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN/ X-RealMail-Ref: UNKNOWN/str=0001.0A0B020B.5007E04F.01E2,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-RealMail-IWF: NO X-CTCH-SenderID: steve.allam@trustsphere.com X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Spam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Suspected: 0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:23:26 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090601030105020104060007 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of how it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normally provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how you might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the recommendations are provided. As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as we are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well. Regards, Steve On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, ??? > wrote: > > > Consider this case: > > Content-type: application/reputon+json > > { > > "reputon": > > { > > "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com ", > > "rater-authenticity": 1.0, > > "assertion": "IS-GOOD", > > "rated": "Alex Rodriguez", > > "rating": 0.5, > > "sample-size": 50000 > > } > > } > > ...indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity > "RatingsRUs.example.com " > consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee > Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good* or be > *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals > 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand. > > > > I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.com > collected 50,000 data points about > Alex Rodriguez. It is 100% certain that "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a > real thing. The data collected indicates that the claim "Alex > Rodriguez is good" is 50% true. > > As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also > not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% > likely that he's good. > > -MSK > > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep --------------090601030105020104060007 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of how it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normally provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how you might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the recommendations are provided.

As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as we are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well.

Regards,

Steve



On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, 邓光青 <dgq2011@gmail.com> wrote:

Consider this case:

Content-type: application/reputon+json

{

"reputon":

{

"rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com",

"rater-authenticity": 1.0,

"assertion": "IS-GOOD",

"rated": "Alex Rodriguez",

"rating": 0.5,

"sample-size": 50000

}

}

…indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity "RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand.


I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.com collected 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez.  It is 100% certain that "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing.  The data collected indicates that the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true.

As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely that he's good.

-MSK


_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep


--------------090601030105020104060007-- From steve.allam@trustsphere.com Thu Jul 19 03:33:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B8021F867B for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:33:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.246 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.353, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z9Neuv5p-D1C for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OB2-RMV3.realmail-asp.co.uk (obgw2.realmail-asp.co.uk [80.249.107.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCD321F8539 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:33:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=trustsphere.com; s=rmdkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=P8rJf1zPKVPhUPozrrzCUYAWYsQTndiz32GRgBgQ/9E=; b=HGTEmNykf88Giy4LNV7VP1a3beOEd7k9tceeOoks7fwGW8NzXJG5hAosBbciWJETb1cmKTRU6TD4NgpzvevIhVhh464I8V7p2Tr6sAgHqxAL4+XG9LzrXVlx1nHB+pE9sPV7q6sPyJWS1QivTdbIzhtVdjqVWkPn5BQm+LrJoM4=; Received: from [116.12.149.130] (helo=cgpro.boxsentry.com) by OB2-RMV3.realmail-asp.co.uk with esmtp id 1Sro41-0002gj-IJ for domainrep@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:34:34 +0100 Received: by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.4.0) with PIPE id 2042038; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:31:53 +0800 Received: from [88.97.130.81] (account steve.allam@trustsphere.com HELO [10.1.1.35]) by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPSA id 2042034 for domainrep@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:31:45 +0800 Message-ID: <5007E299.9070503@trustsphere.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:34:01 +0100 From: Steve Allam User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <20120718184236.GA18918@solar.andreasschulze.de> In-Reply-To: <20120718184236.GA18918@solar.andreasschulze.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-LogiQ-query: 116.12.149.130/steve.allam@trustsphere.com/domainrep@ietf.org (error socket failure) X-RealMail-Category: UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN/ X-RealMail-Ref: UNKNOWN/str=0001.0A0B020B.5007E2BA.0082,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-RealMail-IWF: NO X-CTCH-SenderID: steve.allam@trustsphere.com X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Spam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Suspected: 0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] rDNS identifiers X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:33:42 -0000 Are there any numbers on the take-up of MTX? Regards, Steve On 18/07/2012 19:42, Andreas Schulze wrote: > Am 29.06.2012 12:37 schrieb Jacob R Rideout: >> Has anyone on the list considered the use of the IPv4 (or v6) PTR rDNS >> value as an identifier? Or more strictly, a fully qualified domain name, that also >> resolves to the queried IP address. > Hi, > > MTX is (not very common) but much stricter. > see http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ > > It's like a distributed selfmade whitelisting/reputation. > > Consider I have an IP-Address 192.0.2.1 assigned to my mailserver. I like to send mail. > The receiver usually will reverse lookup that IP. > 1.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. PTR -> outbound-mailer.example.org. > That's all. > > Next the receiver *may* doublecheck the name resolv too. > I personaly don't expect that the name resolv to 192.0.2.1. > If I would force that on my MX I would lose too much legit mail. > So the doublecheck is not practical for most people. So normal "dnscheck" ends with "sender has any rDNS". > > But I as a sender could do more. I could state that I *do* have control over the dns zone > my PTR points to. That's usual if I own ip space. It's unusual for a dialup. > > I can provide an A record 1.2.0.192.mtx.outbound-mailer.example.org. = 127.0.0.1 > If the receiver ask for that record he knows that > - I control the rdns zone > - I control the forward zone > - I really spend my time to setup such records. > The receiver may notice my much greater interest that my mails are delivered. > > In fact that is a nice scheme to intoduce someone as a mailsender. > without having reputation history. > It definitly drops sender how do not control rDNS. > > It does not pervent abusers to setup such records. But that ips could be blocked. > That's a decision every receiver could meet for himself. (or use a central blacklist) > > Andreas > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From sca@andreasschulze.de Thu Jul 19 05:01:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB0521F876F for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5xjzYqMjd+yT for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.andreasschulze.de (mout.andreasschulze.de [84.201.4.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A361F21F871E for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: line deleted by mout X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.4 taro 3WdDNx3D0jz2595 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andreasschulze.de; s=2012; t=1342699330; r=y; bh=uh/fQ2jjlIiJOFoK9g8Zsy6zUE2/sjewxLlphIG5N3M=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To:Cc; z=In-Reply-To:=20<5007E299.9070503@trustsphere.com>|References:=0D= 0A=20=20=20=20=0D=0A=20=20=20=20<20120718184236.GA18918@solar. andreasschulze.de>=0D=0A=20=20=20=20<5007E299.9070503@trustsphere. com>|Date:=20Thu,=2019=20Jul=202012=2014:02:10=20+0200|Subject:=20 Re:=20[domainrep]=20rDNS=20identifiers|From:=20"Andreas=20Schulze" =20|To:=20"Steve=20Allam"=20|Cc:=20domainrep@ietf.org; b=Fu91nx43BQT0WhSO/MxQ/cDeVmT48p3itdJu+GEnGTTGlf5CLLnPgIS1nzpZNJmk8 a2K20WfH9536BGPyusFDnd8eJfQPAroGM3Ltd5ZnwmsrlN2LwPv7Q7biOCBF1aokCc QAGEoPLCZo7ElzG5GxuYTzONlu/dczcuaMLVu3WE= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new-2.7.2 on taro.andreasschulze.de X-Received: line deleted by mout X-Squirrel-UserHash: FQwO X-Squirrel-FromHash: VF9fU1ETUF8JUgNGA1pfUVFCVl9fUlFCVl9fUgRHVlw= Message-ID: <281f59e875411bbc0162c45e8297d87c.squirrel@andreasschulze.de> In-Reply-To: <5007E299.9070503@trustsphere.com> References: <20120718184236.GA18918@solar.andreasschulze.de> <5007E299.9070503@trustsphere.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:02:10 +0200 From: "Andreas Schulze" To: "Steve Allam" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] rDNS identifiers X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:01:24 -0000 Steve, > Are there any numbers on the take-up of MTX? I'm aware of two peaple using it: darxus and me. I talked about MTX last year in a german mailserver conference but got no questions or feedback. The is a SA plugin available which I use at our enterprise class mx. Andreas From dgq2011@gmail.com Thu Jul 19 08:42:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F0221F871C for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:42:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.127 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5dezq6GBrvN8 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F77221F8716 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so3208724ggn.31 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:43:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nhJAdMRLyBveZG2AsMUiInB2yb0WRP0GiYbQwV6dtoE=; b=AL57z/5QkkivmF57e8L5Y4eHj0ArdD03UjI6f9l+Mt+1OkjAGQeRvLrjJjVh3RnQmm IQxGdY5A97ZUZpMt7eqN50T1AuLguuuzzBBEJ0CY9J85u8as5XyVqp4NNuvwT939uRT8 HcbiqvB+BmhzefRW/Dbcc2U/3/l6H0oqbNGxD4EWZkcFgaRqQwXjREfOG87iVSM7su+5 3LrjXdKD81znb8DZ4H1bs+sPJFKx/bqVZtzfuU7bG4sQfyG7M1OB28798vo9RmKqv3aR Sul6iYh4T7YCheyXMcB6VWTZcecR3QztWjQXnnrvRWiCcIVb3BaFTJ5dvP1YWfJD/8vJ vPMQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.10.201 with SMTP id k9mr1998746igb.28.1342712586330; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.81.168 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:43:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5007E047.8010306@trustsphere.com> References: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5007E047.8010306@trustsphere.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:43:06 +0800 Message-ID: From: =?GB2312?B?tcu54sfg?= To: Steve Allam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340369be63c604c530a2b7 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:42:19 -0000 --14dae9340369be63c604c530a2b7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, folks, before mentioning the RATER, RATED and RATING, let=A1=AFs look b= ack: what should the judge do towards the suspect in court. Usually, the judge should sentence the suspect to be either guilty or innocent; no judge will sentence a suspect to be 50% guilty (or innocent)! To some extent, the role of RATER, RATED and RATING is similar to that of the judge, suspect and verdict, respectively. In my opinion, the RATER should have a clear position towards the RATED; so the RATING should be either 0 or 1, no other floating-point number between 0 and 1. 2012/7/19 Steve Allam > Hi, > > Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is > being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of ho= w > it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a > similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normally > provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how y= ou > might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the > recommendations are provided. > > As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in > the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as w= e > are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how > you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well. > > Regards, > > Steve > > > > > On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, =B5=CB=B9=E2=C7=E0 w= rote: > >> >> Consider this case: >> >> Content-type: application/reputon+json >> >> { >> >> "reputon": >> >> { >> >> "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com", >> >> "rater-authenticity": 1.0, >> >> "assertion": "IS-GOOD", >> >> "rated": "Alex Rodriguez", >> >> "rating": 0.5, >> >> "sample-size": 50000 >> >> } >> >> } >> =A1=ADindicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity " >> RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from >> everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *go= od* >> or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals = 0.5 >> but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand. >> > > > I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.comcollecte= d 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez. It is 100% certain that > "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing. The data collected indicates th= at > the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true. > > As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also not > bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely tha= t > he's good. > > -MSK > > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing listdomainrep@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/list= info/domainrep > > > > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > > --=20 Guangqing Deng --14dae9340369be63c604c530a2b7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, folks, before mentioning the RATER, RATED and RATING, let’s look back: what should the judge do towards the suspect in court. Usually, the ju= dge should sentence the suspect to be either guilty or innocent; no judge will sentence a suspect to be 50% guilty (or innocent)! To some extent, the role of <= span lang=3D"EN-US">RATER, RATED and RATING is similar to that of the judge, suspect and verdict, respectively. In my opinion, the RATER should have a clear position towards the RATED; so the RATING should be either 0 or 1, no other floating-point number between 0 and 1.



2012/7/19 Steve Allam = <steve.= allam@trustsphere.com>
=20 =20 =20
Hi,

Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of how it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normally provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how you might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the recommendations are provided.

As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as we are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well.

Regards,

Steve




On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Ju= l 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, =B5=CB=B9=E2=C7=E0 <dgq2011@gmail.com> wrote:

Consider this case:

Content-type: application/reputon+json

{

"reputon":

{

"rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com",

"rater-authenticity": 1.0,

"assertion": "IS-GOOD",

"rated": "Alex Rodriguez",

"rating": 0.5,

"sample-size": 50000

}

}

…indicates that we are absolutely *su= re* (1.0) that the entity "RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very h= ard to understand.


I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.com collected 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez.  It is 10= 0% certain that "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing.&n= bsp; The data collected indicates that the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true.

As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely that he's good.

-MSK


__________________________________=
_____________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org<=
/a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep



_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep




--
Guangqing Deng
<= br> --14dae9340369be63c604c530a2b7-- From steve.allam@trustsphere.com Thu Jul 19 08:51:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAA821F85E1 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:51:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.959 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HLyGT0eeQaHk for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ob-rmv3.realmail-asp.co.uk (obgw1.realmail-asp.co.uk [80.249.100.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F022021F85D9 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:51:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=trustsphere.com; s=rmdkim; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=c2VXUnhWDhSzwApiA2hSftfVNvEcnNrFhNbbHzCfVE8=; b=JTb/MEayR5SeYwSwVfNTSNQ8UbRayhktEtjUOLKLgxdJSbSMPkMhffk1fBzVPkRLiYTDN6RcR+SxRsi/XyLGntMoz1XDd46bRMXsishDBjzEQFd3Ygr0t23FoUcyqZDsVw/yL9EKJrsdS3yEee0d/rVqxldPaqnc3WHSIMcqKVc=; Received: from [116.12.149.130] (helo=cgpro.boxsentry.com) by ob-rmv3.realmail-asp.co.uk with esmtp id 1Srt1h-0003hP-Al; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:52:30 +0100 Received: by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.4.0) with PIPE id 2042342; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:50:08 +0800 Received: from [88.97.130.81] (account steve.allam@trustsphere.com HELO [10.1.1.35]) by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPSA id 2042352; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:50:04 +0800 Message-ID: <50082D33.2020402@trustsphere.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:52:19 +0100 From: Steve Allam User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?GB2312?B?tcu54sfg?= References: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5007E047.8010306@trustsphere.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030901010901040004090006" X-LogiQ-query: 116.12.149.130/steve.allam@trustsphere.com/dgq2011@gmail.com (I000 Unknown UNKNOWN.UNKNOWN ) X-LogiQ-query: 116.12.149.130/steve.allam@trustsphere.com/domainrep@ietf.org (I000 OK UNKNOWN.EXISTS ) X-RealMail-Category: UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN/ X-RealMail-Ref: UNKNOWN/str=0001.0A0B020D.50082D3E.01D2,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-RealMail-IWF: NO X-CTCH-SenderID: steve.allam@trustsphere.com X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Spam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Suspected: 0 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:51:40 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030901010901040004090006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It depends. If my assertion is "does this sender ALWAYS send good messages", the rating would be 1 or 0 If my assertion is "what percentage of mail is good from this sender", the rating will be somewhere between 0 and 1 Hence, the rating can be whatever the application author wants it to be, repute just provides the framework. Steve On 19/07/2012 16:43, 邓光青 wrote: > > Hi, folks, before mentioning the RATER, RATED and RATING, let’s look > back: what should the judge do towards the suspect in court.Usually, > the judge should sentence the suspect to be either guilty or innocent; > no judge will sentence a suspect to be 50% guilty (or innocent)! To > some extent, the role of RATER, RATED and RATING is similar to that of > the judge, suspect and verdict, respectively. In my opinion, the > RATERshould have a clear position towards the RATED; so the RATING > should be either 0 or 1, no other floating-point number between 0 and 1. > > > > 2012/7/19 Steve Allam > > > Hi, > > Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that > is being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own > description of how it used the rating item, and how the number > should be interpreted - in a similar way to many anti-spam systems > that provide a score, they normally provide information on what > different levels of that score mean and how you might use them - > as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the > recommendations are provided. > > As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING > item in the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything > inbetween, as we are simply returning a true or false - our > documentation will detail how you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well. > > Regards, > > Steve > > > > > On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, 邓光青 > > wrote: >> >> >> Consider this case: >> >> Content-type: application/reputon+json >> >> { >> >> "reputon": >> >> { >> >> "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com >> ", >> >> "rater-authenticity": 1.0, >> >> "assertion": "IS-GOOD", >> >> "rated": "Alex Rodriguez", >> >> "rating": 0.5, >> >> "sample-size": 50000 >> >> } >> >> } >> >> …indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the >> entity "RatingsRUs.example.com >> " consolidated 50000 data >> points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and >> concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) >> at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals 0.5 but >> "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand. >> >> >> >> I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.com >> collected 50,000 data points >> about Alex Rodriguez. It is 100% certain that "Alex Rodriguez" >> refers to a real thing. The data collected indicates that the >> claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true. >> >> As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but >> also not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that >> it's 50% likely that he's good. >> >> -MSK >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> domainrep mailing list >> domainrep@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > > > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > > > > > -- > Guangqing Deng > --------------030901010901040004090006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
It depends.

If my assertion is "does this sender ALWAYS send good messages", the rating would be 1 or 0
If my assertion is "what percentage of mail is good from this sender", the rating will be somewhere between 0 and 1

Hence, the rating can be whatever the application author wants it to be, repute just provides the framework.

Steve


On 19/07/2012 16:43, 邓光青 wrote:

Hi, folks, before mentioning the RATER, RATED and RATING, let’s look back: what should the judge do towards the suspect in court. Usually, the judge should sentence the suspect to be either guilty or innocent; no judge will sentence a suspect to be 50% guilty (or innocent)! To some extent, the role of RATER, RATED and RATING is similar to that of the judge, suspect and verdict, respectively. In my opinion, the RATER should have a clear position towards the RATED; so the RATING should be either 0 or 1, no other floating-point number between 0 and 1.



2012/7/19 Steve Allam <steve.allam@trustsphere.com>
Hi,

Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of how it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normally provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how you might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the recommendations are provided.

As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as we are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well.

Regards,

Steve




On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, 邓光青 <dgq2011@gmail.com> wrote:

Consider this case:

Content-type: application/reputon+json

{

"reputon":

{

"rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com",

"rater-authenticity": 1.0,

"assertion": "IS-GOOD",

"rated": "Alex Rodriguez",

"rating": 0.5,

"sample-size": 50000

}

}

…indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity "RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand.


I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.com collected 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez.  It is 100% certain that "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing.  The data collected indicates that the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true.

As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely that he's good.

-MSK


_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep



_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep




--
Guangqing Deng


--------------030901010901040004090006-- From sca@andreasschulze.de Sun Jul 22 22:47:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487F311E8079 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:47:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8gR4rSkdFpwI for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.andreasschulze.de (mout.andreasschulze.de [84.201.4.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EFB21F8616 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:47:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: line deleted by mout X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.6 taro 3WgWtB3rvlz2596 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andreasschulze.de; s=2012; t=1343022420; atpsh=sha256; atps=andreasschulze.de; r=y; bh=WvbywrneJbBwiqeQR29EnpwFrjThOdcZw3ayyVqICPM=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To:Cc; z=In-Reply-To:=20<281f59e875411bbc0162c45e8297d87c.squirrel@andreas schulze.de>|References:=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=0D=0A=20=20=20=20<20 120718184236.GA18918@solar.andreasschulze.de>=0D=0A=20=20=20=20<50 07E299.9070503@trustsphere.com>=0D=0A=20=20=20=20<281f59e875411bbc 0162c45e8297d87c.squirrel@andreasschulze.de>|Date:=20Mon,=2023=20J ul=202012=2007:46:59=20+0200|Subject:=20MTX=20/=20was:=20rDNS=20id entifiers|From:=20"Andreas=20Schulze"=20|To :=20"Steve=20Allam"=20|Cc:=20domainre p@ietf.org; b=jtMFryuPtoR4gig+Y/4CAX++7uH/ZQCBi+DxMkfI0nioyzQ4EIaCzoqPf1toopICJ ZQVqMYViFmLUGJpJ3Dp6NNHJhXMvkn6gTNVCYJjaT2UtcoVaV8QCsEmc4xR92hz8QR 03VNDTi4C/VhTD7QXpW8s8Gzr4HAsfuYWKI1+5sA= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new-2.7.2 on taro.andreasschulze.de X-Received: line deleted by mout X-Squirrel-UserHash: FQwO X-Squirrel-FromHash: VF9fU1ETUF8JUgNGA1pfUVFCVl9fUlFCVl9fUgRHVlw= Message-ID: <9f50a33dc3894f1e4c97811429f01f9d.squirrel@andreasschulze.de> In-Reply-To: <281f59e875411bbc0162c45e8297d87c.squirrel@andreasschulze.de> References: <20120718184236.GA18918@solar.andreasschulze.de> <5007E299.9070503@trustsphere.com> <281f59e875411bbc0162c45e8297d87c.squirrel@andreasschulze.de> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:46:59 +0200 From: "Andreas Schulze" To: "Steve Allam" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] MTX / was: rDNS identifiers X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:47:17 -0000 Steve, >> Are there any numbers on the take-up of MTX? > I'm aware of two peaple using it: darxus and me. I asked at the sa mailinglist for mtx. got 2 responses. It's not very popular ... Andreas From dgq2011@gmail.com Sun Jul 29 06:18:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90FA21F86B9 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:18:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wz02luyD26YT for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83FA21F8646 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so8460816obb.31 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:18:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6RwglQd9vXpvSZ69nBe0nEofN++GSdWMj69xCtdxU40=; b=RC5q9zgA0xctj7IPC9XijhEZexEvwOB/gReQfD4xZk5FqYeFjlIKbHAy0HPZc00J8G oU7xH/YsNtrPcrAriPCaZf+y9Q/yxJEyiHGD7fJIjp3mpCnKEZudLDZNbHTMiLYHuUjE Ol/aMHrZLmSq+7E8z939DyeZHJipncKkeS3o6cXzVHmcvD+x2gTMtpG0iNEDo8NSdXSb HdzxoIe57oLQrKWgqzuq48peHTgMGz4HP/6XdnkfexGUAMM+O2y8RkKj4f6TXXs6Q1Jg Q9QO8OosRJ1wg5x6iijOI/sY9+m+haqrE/5B2F4RiKlKHsspxHYGeSqBB1LZ2CWNxyMz DAaA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.10.201 with SMTP id k9mr6202092igb.28.1343567894245; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.81.168 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:18:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50082D33.2020402@trustsphere.com> References: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5007E047.8010306@trustsphere.com> <50082D33.2020402@trustsphere.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:18:14 +0800 Message-ID: From: Guangqing Deng To: Steve Allam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93403691171c804c5f7c7d4 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:18:18 -0000 --14dae93403691171c804c5f7c7d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Maybe it is worthy to take consideration of RATER-AUTHENTICITY whose value range is also between 0.0 and 1.0. Users will be puzzled by a RATER-AUTHENTICITY of 0.5, for they can=A1=AFt determine the RATED is genui= ne or not. It is better to send a clear indication to the users no matter what they will do (but the recommendation is provided). So the RATER-AUTHENTICITY item should also be either 0 or 1, no other floating-point number between 0 and 1. Another issue that I am interested in is how to compute the RATER-AUTHENTICITY? You know, the RATING is computed from the collected data; is the RATER-AUTHENTICITY also computed from that? Please forgive me if I miss something important. 2012/7/19 Steve Allam > > It depends. > > If my assertion is "does this sender ALWAYS send good messages", the > rating would be 1 or 0 > If my assertion is "what percentage of mail is good from this sender", th= e > rating will be somewhere between 0 and 1 > > Hence, the rating can be whatever the application author wants it to be, > repute just provides the framework. > > Steve > > > > On 19/07/2012 16:43, =B5=CB=B9=E2=C7=E0 wrote: > > Hi, folks, before mentioning the RATER, RATED and RATING, let=A1=AFs look= back: > what should the judge do towards the suspect in court. Usually, the judge > should sentence the suspect to be either guilty or innocent; no judge > will sentence a suspect to be 50% guilty (or innocent)! To some extent, t= he > role of RATER, RATED and RATING is similar to that of the judge, suspect > and verdict, respectively. In my opinion, the RATER should have a clear > position towards the RATED; so the RATING should be either 0 or 1, no > other floating-point number between 0 and 1. > > > 2012/7/19 Steve Allam > >> Hi, >> >> Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is >> being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of h= ow >> it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a >> similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normall= y >> provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how = you >> might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the >> recommendations are provided. >> >> As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in >> the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as = we >> are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how >> you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well. >> >> Regards, >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, =B5=CB=B9=E2=C7=E0 = wrote: >> >>> >>> Consider this case: >>> >>> Content-type: application/reputon+json >>> >>> { >>> >>> "reputon": >>> >>> { >>> >>> "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com", >>> >>> "rater-authenticity": 1.0, >>> >>> "assertion": "IS-GOOD", >>> >>> "rated": "Alex Rodriguez", >>> >>> "rating": 0.5, >>> >>> "sample-size": 50000 >>> >>> } >>> >>> } >>> =A1=ADindicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity " >>> RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from >>> everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *g= ood* >>> or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals= 0.5 >>> but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand. >>> >> >> >> I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.comcollect= ed 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez. It is 100% certain that >> "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing. The data collected indicates t= hat >> the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true. >> >> As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also not >> bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely th= at >> he's good. >> >> -MSK >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> domainrep mailing listdomainrep@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis= tinfo/domainrep >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> domainrep mailing list >> domainrep@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep >> >> > > > -- > Guangqing Deng > > > --=20 Guangqing Deng --14dae93403691171c804c5f7c7d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Maybe it is worthy to take consideration of RATER-AUTHENTICITY whose value = range is also between 0.0 and 1.0. Users will be puzzled by a RATER-AUTHENT= ICITY of 0.5, for they can’t determine the RATED is genuine or not. I= t is better to send a clear indication to the users no matter what they wil= l do (but the recommendation is provided). So the RATER-AUTHENTICITY item s= hould also be either 0 or 1, no other floating-point number between 0 and 1= . Another issue that I am interested in is how to compute the RATER-AUTHENT= ICITY? You know, the RATING is computed from the collected data; is the RAT= ER-AUTHENTICITY also computed from that? Please forgive me if I miss someth= ing important.

2012/7/19 Steve Allam <= steve.alla= m@trustsphere.com>
=20 =20 =20

It depends.

If my assertion is "does this sender ALWAYS send good messages&quo= t;, the rating would be 1 or 0
If my assertion is "what percentage of mail is good from this sender", the rating will be somewhere between 0 and 1

Hence, the rating can be whatever the application author wants it to be, repute just provides the framework.

Steve



On 19/07/2012 16:43, =B5=CB=B9=E2=C7=E0 wrote:

Hi, folks, be= fore mentioning the RATER, RATED and RATING, let’s look back: what should the judge do towards the suspect in court. Usually, the judge should = sentence the suspect to be either guilty or innocent; n= o judge will sentence a suspect to be 50% guilty (or = innocent)! To some extent, the role of RATER, RATED and RATING is similar to that of the judge, suspect and verdict, respectively. In my opinion, the RATER should have a clear position towards the RATED; so the RATING should be either 0 or 1, no other floating-point number between 0 and 1.



2012/7/19 Steve Allam &l= t;steve.al= lam@trustsphere.com>
Hi,

Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of how it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normally provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how you might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the recommendations are provided.

As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as we are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well.

Regards,

Steve




On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, =B5=CB=B9=E2=C7=E0 <= dgq2011@gmail.com> wrote:

Consider this case:

Content-t= ype: application/reputon+json

{<= /p>

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">"reputon":

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">{

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">"rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com",

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">"rater-authenticity": 1.0,

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">"assertion": "IS-GOOD",

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">"rated": "Alex Rodriguez",

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">"rating": 0.5,

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">"sample-size": 50000

<= span lang=3D"EN-US">}

}<= /p> …indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity "RatingsRUs.example.c= om" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good* or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity&= quot; equals 0.5 but "rating" equals 1.0, it is= also very hard to understand.


As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's no= t good but also not bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely that he's g= ood.

-MSK





_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep= @ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep




--
Guangqing Deng





--
Guangqing Deng

--14dae93403691171c804c5f7c7d4--