Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:22:54 -0800

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 the IETF.

	Title           : A Media Type for Reputation Interchange
	Author(s)       : Nathaniel Borenstein
                          Murray S. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-repute-media-type-00.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2011-11-19

   This document defines a media type for exchanging reputation
   information about an arbitrary class of object.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-00.txt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-00.txt

---

From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:03:50 +0200

Hi all,

I've been tracking this list for some number of months but actually have 
sent no simple message when discussion on WG formation and WG candidate 
docs occurred, so this is my first look at this document, and therefore 
my comments may raise the issues that have already been discussed here.

A general comment to all the uploaded documents: instead RFCxxxx[+n] 
please use the reference to some particular I-D - that will really make 
finding all the related docs easier.

With respect to this particular draft.  In Abstract you mention that the 
defined media type can be used for specifying reputation info for any 
arbitrary resource/object, but in the Introduction you particularly 
point to the use-case in context of work being done here (additionally, 
I indeed don't know what is RFC xxxx+4 or what draft it is, I may guess 
though this is draft-ietf-repute-query-http).  Could you please align 
these two parts?

Section 2:  Just an observation: the titles of section and sub-sections 
with the blank lines above and under take 8 lines, and the actual text - 
only 5 of them.  This isn't a major issue, but to improve readability 
you could just merge s2.1 and 2.2.

Why the name "application/reputon"?  Should it be 
"application/reputation" or "application/reput" at least?  What does 
"reputon" stand for?

The 'format' parameter: should it contain media type instead of "txt" or 
"xml" (and, in the current case, how are these parameters tracked?)?  We 
could re-use the 3462bis approach (see 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02#section-3, 
after the template).

In Section 3.1: s/=:/=/.  Also, you should note <CFWS> being imported 
from 5322.

The RATER-AUTHENTICITY description doesn't match ABNF:  in s3: "number 
between 0 and 1 inclusive"; in s3.2: "must be a number between -1 and 1 
inclusive" (and your ABNF doesn't match the last definition).  I suppose 
you wanted the former, and so the comment should be corrected.  Also, 
you can constrain this production by making it:

>     rater-auth = "RATER-AUTHENTICITY:"
>                  *WSP ( "1" / "0" ) "." 1*DIGIT [CFWS] CRLF

(The same concerns RATING ABNF.)

In Section 5.1:  Please remove To and Subject lines.  I understand that 
is what RFC 4288 says us to put, but I really have no idea how that may 
be useful (and now, as 4288bis is being actively discussed, I've also 
raised this question).

Won't new assertions and attributes tracked with IANA?  Or it will be 
implied that app spec will define some of them?

References:  Shouldn't you make [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS], [KEYWORDS] and 
[MAIL] normative?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:29:09 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (?. ?????????)"
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 4:04 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-00.txt
> 

This will be cleaned up in the next release, especially as some of the referenced sections get moved around.

> With respect to this particular draft.  In Abstract you mention that
> the defined media type can be used for specifying reputation info for
> any arbitrary resource/object, but in the Introduction you particularly

Same.

> with the blank lines above and under take 8 lines, and the actual text
> - only 5 of them.  This isn't a major issue, but to improve readability

I don't think that's a big deal, but I also expect that section is likely to have more stuff added to it as this work develops.

> "application/reputation" or "application/reput" at least?  What does

It doesn't stand for anything.  It's a name invented by Nathaniel, reminiscent of the English words for atomic particles, and so far everybody likes it.

> The 'format' parameter: should it contain media type instead of "txt"
> or "xml" (and, in the current case, how are these parameters tracked?)?
> We could re-use the 3462bis approach (see

This will probably go away, as the current plan is to drop the text format and use XML (or JSON) only.

> In Section 3.1: s/=:/=/.  Also, you should note <CFWS> being imported

Fixed.

> inclusive" (and your ABNF doesn't match the last definition).  I
> suppose you wanted the former, and so the comment should be corrected.
> Also, you can constrain this production by making it:
> 

Fixed.

> be useful (and now, as 4288bis is being actively discussed, I've also

We need to follow the current standard.  If IANA wants a specific To: and Subject:, then we should use that.

> implied that app spec will define some of them?

The latter.

> References:  Shouldn't you make [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS], [KEYWORDS] and

I think you're right with [KEYWORDS], and [MAIL], but [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] is not mandatory to implementing the protocol.  I've updated accordingly.

Thanks,
-MSK

---

From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:50:54 +0200

Thanks for taking into account my comments.  Mykyta

20.11.2011 21:29, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> In Section 3.1: s/=:/=/.  Also, you should note<CFWS>  being imported
>> from 5322.
> Fixed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>