Subject: [domainrep] Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt> (A Model for Reputation Reporting) to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:45:07 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Reputation Services WG (repute)
to consider the following document:
- 'A Model for Reputation Reporting'
  <draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-08-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document describes a general architecture for a reputation-based
   service and a model for requesting reputation-related data over the
   Internet, where "reputation" refers to predictions or expectations
   about an entity or an identifier such as a domain name.  The document
   roughly follows the recommendations of RFC4101 for describing a
   protocol model.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-model/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-model/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:52:32 -0700

Hi Murray,
At 00:17 21-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Sure, mentioning something about the stored aggregated data also 
>makes sense in Section 8.  I'll add something.

[snip]

>Reputations can certainly be private things, both as an aggregate 
>"result" and as the pieces of data that allowed that result to be 
>reached.  But I don't think that's a new point given the above.  The 
>new text will cover it.

Ok.

Regards,
-sm