From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jul 3 02:41:03 2013 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 AC19B21F9CB5; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 f3eokL-i3M9Z; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F6C21F9BAE; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130703094103.24626.97848.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 02:41:03 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-09.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, 03 Jul 2013 09:41:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. 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-09.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-07-03 Abstract: This document defines the format of reputation response data ("reputons"), the media-type for packaging it, and definition of a registry for the names of reputation applications and response sets. 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-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-media-type-09 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jul 3 02:41:28 2013 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 04A7411E8183; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 YzP64ac2r7B3; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE3D11E8184; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130703094124.24616.98985.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 02:41:24 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-model-06.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, 03 Jul 2013 09:41:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of the = IETF. Title : A Model for Reputation Reporting Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Andrew Sullivan Filename : draft-ietf-repute-model-06.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2013-07-03 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 IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-model There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-model-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-model-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jul 3 02:41:41 2013 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 A034111E8192; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 7woUFB9+WA0z; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B1E11E8180; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:41:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130703094137.4656.51335.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 02:41:37 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-08.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, 03 Jul 2013 09:41:41 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of the = IETF. Title : A Reputation Query Protocol Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-query-http-08.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2013-07-03 Abstract: This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation information over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol using JSON as the payload meta-format. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-query-http There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-query-http-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jul 12 13:38:06 2013 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 2BFA821F9D1B; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 uIOVgAIZ3kY0; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF4621F9CC6; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130712203801.15240.46418.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:01 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-model-07.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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:38:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of the = IETF. Title : A Model for Reputation Reporting Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Andrew Sullivan Filename : draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2013-07-12 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 IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-model There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-model-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-model-07 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jul 12 13:38:16 2013 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 41FFE21F9F6B; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 18roeg+vsfzA; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BEE21F9A70; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130712203815.11827.43698.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:38:15 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:38:16 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of the = IETF. Title : A Reputation Query Protocol Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2013-07-12 Abstract: This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation information over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol using JSON as the payload meta-format. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-query-http There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-query-http-09 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From superuser@gmail.com Fri Jul 12 13:49:24 2013 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 D5E7221F9F34 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 VIKUoTqxqwRp for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9BA21F9F26 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k14so8618545wgh.29 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=rBMs0gTDbF65o2clcRzomBNtRYMmd8L2FqRKOiC2yjM=; b=zLbJ22hT8UWJTwLyQ23bRsdnoNShzaJAENFucio+76dJrf5Q8WM9S6O7JexTFW5Oid DeLCyowr2MqJewOTzm87P+X6XxfK6mQ+V+M6KqY22ZoXi6TETN2CybVMSN6JKp5PD10A Dk4CPZFJ+yfxjU8IIbVoSCn2lR2jnX5u9S2v2CfdOgaeBqRUbXJxfVlNhTOsYjMSPJzg hObpm+C0l6S4B1oZ5nalfnYkGOdaGxP1eSlrpPaiNBbAp2Wd8gVKHC4/n7RSTR0aCODQ auXX2+Yfy6sQp/pIZr7gPuI8mihQZDDEV5Wagzwh2U8LSVKSsD9iRJO91Ad+U+DnCHDQ OG9Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.122.71 with SMTP id lq7mr24806833wjb.77.1373662159373; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-repute-model.all@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-repute-query-http.all@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012297500d0ab904e156a557 Subject: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:49:24 -0000 --089e012297500d0ab904e156a557 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello silent ones, During AD Evaluation of the four REPUTE drafts that are ready to advance, a number of editorial changes were made, but a couple that are substantive. We need to give this group a chance to voice support or objections to them before Pete starts the IETF Last Call. The main changes since the WGLC versions are: (1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved", with a corresponding change in description. The previous name and description were sufficiently gelatinous that this change seems justified. My own implementation used this, but with a fixed value for all replies, so changing it to be a different name with largely the same intended meaning will not be harmful. (2) Less of a major change: The "{service}" template substitution can now only be replaced by the name of the service to which you're connecting. I'm assuming these are innocuous and there won't be any objection to them. It would be great if I could get some actual responses, especially from my co-authors, but I'll take silence as golden as well. Thanks, hope to see some of you in Berlin, -MSK --089e012297500d0ab904e156a557 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello silent ones,

During AD Evaluation of the four REPUTE drafts that are ready to advanc= e, a number of editorial changes were made, but a couple that are substanti= ve.=A0 We need to give this group a chance to voice support or objections t= o them before Pete starts the IETF Last Call.

The main changes since the WGLC versions are:

(1) "ra= ter-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved", with a= corresponding change in description.=A0 The previous name and description = were sufficiently gelatinous that this change seems justified.=A0 My own im= plementation used this, but with a fixed value for all replies, so changing= it to be a different name with largely the same intended meaning will not = be harmful.

(2) Less of a major change: The "{service}" template su= bstitution can now only be replaced by the name of the service to which you= 're connecting.

I'm assuming these are innocuous and t= here won't be any objection to them.=A0 It would be great if I could ge= t some actual responses, especially from my co-authors, but I'll take s= ilence as golden as well.

Thanks, hope to see some of you in Berlin,

-MSK
<= /div> --089e012297500d0ab904e156a557-- From dcrocker@gmail.com Fri Jul 12 14:29:55 2013 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 2F11121F9EFD for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 TVL2jTKQ32rE for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8280021F9ED9 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id up14so11958704obb.0 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jWo0UP9Q4kc80Xbf25/zZ4n9FIxXqrvzyyJEKCpSNeo=; b=v1JBiXIlq6ZZiBrqGaeZrsnv9UzDUyusyr5hw2UYagCb2NTiyXgZ0y7xQENXtEj/oX kzTkiuoNd0rwc0SpryNJWcrZK6vIS+PYFXkDwlVSiSLQt+7VLXMEPo4VW+f3QnaudjBW mrAl3OXXU3XqOifvpcC9a8AR4aiSchuqvWbnwOgFtmZl2rjmwFFzFdR+S0QgTVQdb605 pFXFzYSjDVnNkbuIpHSBKw1eb4BGHkUCwKWvEf1L2AIb06l25fJ0tI+B5PRPLGvJ/6Gb OXiFqkrGIEUGGUw8JFQYkFbDfQ+pIQKT007OYboESzLdWM2eoggoevcQqjE7XYvgfjVH ALnQ== X-Received: by 10.60.39.193 with SMTP id r1mr37283521oek.40.1373664593004; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o8sm21576285obx.11.2013.07.12.14.29.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51E07531.8020202@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:29:21 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-repute-model.all@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-repute-query-http.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:29:55 -0000 On 7/12/2013 1:49 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > The main changes since the WGLC versions are: > > (1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved", with a > corresponding change in description. The previous name and description > were sufficiently gelatinous that this change seems justified. My own > implementation used this, but with a fixed value for all replies, so > changing it to be a different name with largely the same intended > meaning will not be harmful. Folks, It would help the formalities of IETF process for you to look over the change in the document: > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-repute-media-type-09 and post a note here with whatever comments you deem appropriate. My own attempt at a substantive "ok" is: This nicely moves from a definition that was generic and behaviorally vague to one that is entirely behavioral and concrete. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From johnl@iecc.com Fri Jul 12 19:02:18 2013 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 37BEE21F9A4C for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.73 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.469, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 VvGH5l2NT46w for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BB011E80D3 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16179 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2013 02:01:59 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Jul 2013 02:01:59 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51e0b517.xn--hew.k1307; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=UTOFRUe6i73L1/FlD8zUbvGwpwcddF0szHgCdXSh3Og=; b=ZSQtZ8BXAv+pd1+gvmQjHj6E4TPIybm53OKibie91QYIyRGIOO58lGBolxTy/ZrSL37F8wxKtRcbeMOodI24Vs5M0hpfZHSE1iRCqHQXN+0uNlVAjxVBATV7xUqJAkV4eKBKmJanug0n8fmRsqPiGelvehw4DkcaGIKvD+msJD0epYaZ7J3TdPjc1ywebDxtJIPcBsipHBJvUyjG+wtP+S3i7CQ539eL2Nglaard9V4+uG71iI3/auM5kl51jjSI DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51e0b517.xn--hew.k1307; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=UTOFRUe6i73L1/FlD8zUbvGwpwcddF0szHgCdXSh3Og=; b=kkMNanctKQyZlatySdxx292HGtXzvRVyoT4ysbGXm90xCIEZZ9gfxMCkyT3p0Zq4an4Vl45gEAiDGoWqy2ggx+St5ljoVJtQi38EhQSs5CywuOunBHlSR3wTs2oxGqQIlqAGC45rIhGKgOTvh0DHdG9O4lHNf0HiHYB3LqnG8WBLAyzYeAVGdaU7hzbuljek1HUCpiqFk//v01AbUp+LWCAdlQR+HouPSkRJEHZuzidrvRk6vFQZvHtwriKgnLN/ Date: 13 Jul 2013 02:01:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20130713020137.14506.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: domainrep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:02:18 -0000 >(1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved" I guess it's OK, but it seems awfully specific to spam filtering. My canonical application for repute was always restaurant reviews, so I could have my resto finder retrieve ratings from Yelp, Zagat, or Urbanspoon. Does a high well-behaved score mean that if you go to a restaurant and get food poisoning, you probably won't if you go back? R's, John From dcrocker@gmail.com Fri Jul 12 19:46:26 2013 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 C71BE21F998D for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:46:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 Pu6ftis8FLjv for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2603E21F997D for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id xn12so12011872obc.6 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:46:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FlEaWKPDE79z522emjEaYoUu4vjuGxTklKVYPMx/FTk=; b=RO7fQqMwMFEa39c+JQc8IV20q/cBME4RS2EbPnVwIvFgVV1/C1lHic1YydDFEdGm56 tMroug0OLZEr7Y1bRzhO4TnTveCE8XHW0cnTv1qyMiLr6pLbvXFNXTpc8Rp7NJp/IaSK SQOq4oleRe3mHZUPGZAEmuAwfnQRguMwiaEaHknnKBJH3ZoazX+KvoEEr0TzdmBdFDZH cWC5QPaEuk8A4eWj9kq35iwbGXZnYIcpSEKneHCwjplGqtLgcL0FYfcHeUPrUxnj5Cxl T1L4UU69wcjDoepqfy/boAdhp8U0QEXZbAHwhe6owwUoZKG5om9Cpd/ip3kBuD+0hzGO v22g== X-Received: by 10.182.125.38 with SMTP id mn6mr2562422obb.52.1373683585737; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rs1sm57814436obb.12.2013.07.12.19.46.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51E0BF62.90605@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:45:54 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine References: <20130713020137.14506.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130713020137.14506.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:46:26 -0000 On 7/12/2013 7:01 PM, John Levine wrote: >> (1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved" > > I guess it's OK, but it seems awfully specific to spam filtering. > > My canonical application for repute was always restaurant reviews, so > I could have my resto finder retrieve ratings from Yelp, Zagat, or > Urbanspoon. > > Does a high well-behaved score mean that if you go to a restaurant and > get food poisoning, you probably won't if you go back? I suspect you are confusing core mechanism with specific application. For each application, such as restaurant reviews, the semantics of the rating are defined by the application. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From johnl@taugh.com Fri Jul 12 20:59:38 2013 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 4001B11E80E9 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:59:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 wDG27Is+Hv56 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA0711E80E4 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 38117 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2013 03:59:35 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=94e4.51e0d0a7.k1307; bh=tzTc0ymoCWIACPf6+dWL3GQ3EsaPB2v1HUzEpzn7HSs=; b=ur0FiQ3+fRPg9API9CH99SwRQFNv3GOI51pr+jeQdF1ZTYCLItH2cvlmbk88BefNcJvaCybfkm9FYqZGKyt88Q5QoEzJToSwyM5Hr78B14JyA1IeeH/l8KHVcuMlft4TWCM61VrZvVqpU7Iy+CGe4ozI+gNW77D50MzINN60Oey0Kxo8eihzaf1h9SLpx3HC3TQnEgEoRBAUPclPZYF+N7RoBZMkFwc4YHvGpwBATj7fjdS+FM9KU1EclKml+Ceo DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=94e4.51e0d0a7.k1307; bh=tzTc0ymoCWIACPf6+dWL3GQ3EsaPB2v1HUzEpzn7HSs=; b=miBzLj9i5r9OGG9s/vmw6/n8RRkr9CCnxsF/Gy5toGRBQo6G/tvdW5s2z04EsxIlXP7nX2NSeqQJf8FpWajoBJ5c1Ypwadx27uR1763FS5jS7m8VvMgqc4v0YyF2ucXK1YAcDnpXPKlf86ox2+SBWgRO7USybsnJrq9uO98tF2FaEynFVGpLNTPBH9fCzARoDIHbmlRUWjxIr6YJjSbGAJI+XUhoxYxy4Jg/WCXFyfTUFvQRsp8C18LekE2cSSc4 Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 13 Jul 2013 03:59:13 -0000 Date: 12 Jul 2013 23:59:34 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Dave Crocker" In-Reply-To: <51E0BF62.90605@gmail.com> References: <20130713020137.14506.qmail@joyce.lan> <51E0BF62.90605@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; BOUNDARY="3825401791-737655771-1373687975=:81901" Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 03:59:38 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --3825401791-737655771-1373687975=:81901 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed >>> (1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved" >> I guess it's OK, but it seems awfully specific to spam filtering. > I suspect you are confusing core mechanism with specific application. > > For each application, such as restaurant reviews, the semantics of the rating > are defined by the application. The text on page 4 says that a high well behaved score is a hint not to take a bad rating too seriously. (If that's not what it's supposed to mean, the text needs to be rewritten.) Like I said, that seems awfully specific to spam filtering. I think I understand what it means in an online abuse context, but I don't understand what it means anywhere else. The other optional attributes seem adequately generic, but this one is just odd. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. --3825401791-737655771-1373687975=:81901 Content-Type: APPLICATION/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s MIIJCQYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIII+jCCCPYCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqG SIb3DQEHAaCCBjowggY2MIIFHqADAgECAgMGLywwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAw gYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYD VQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYD VQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTAeFw0xMzAzMTYxOTQ0MDdaFw0xNDAzMTgxMjI4MzVaMFUxGTAX BgNVBA0TEHFaMXRuOTBuMkdVODZzemYxGDAWBgNVBAMMD2pvaG5sQHRhdWdo LmNvbTEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPam9obmxAdGF1Z2guY29tMIIBIjANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAve/4NFMbuvtD6QSuXAoYQ0SkaO9s DiNHA4saJNV0OIXd6dtM87w7OETKWWVq24Ab6vQaYh218oCF1GDdLv6EiRB8 oL1k9sK2v70iAVT83vEnmaj6/hQVcBI6mZJH6LXyCgYSP2e5yBQqJu+hgLte bdg7kOKW2tb937jDn9KYRVFIlEU0/iu/b/Buwq3ahg2BsG3vg92Zk+Dv5VON QDLE8x8wdi1cor7qBY/RERw4O3LXo3644OU0t6KS3aQxLrXEvWZHHvLhsAu1 BjYbC+qdSddDT1t+adEnZq9/wMhNGhPWCd/uFDZanSpyM913b7eI1Q2aNgA0 cccjEgBsp8IipwIDAQABo4IC1TCCAtEwCQYDVR0TBAIwADALBgNVHQ8EBAMC BLAwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSL djRDW8NpGZJjlhjZ0SLge0hCvjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBRTcu2SnODaywFcfH6W NU7y1LhRgjAaBgNVHREEEzARgQ9qb2hubEB0YXVnaC5jb20wggFMBgNVHSAE ggFDMIIBPzCCATsGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIDMIIBKjAuBggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0 cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjCB9wYIKwYBBQUHAgIw geowJxYgU3RhcnRDb20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkwAwIBARqB vlRoaXMgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgd2FzIGlzc3VlZCBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gdGhl IENsYXNzIDEgVmFsaWRhdGlvbiByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0 Q29tIENBIHBvbGljeSwgcmVsaWFuY2Ugb25seSBmb3IgdGhlIGludGVuZGVk IHB1cnBvc2UgaW4gY29tcGxpYW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgcmVseWluZyBwYXJ0eSBv YmxpZ2F0aW9ucy4wNgYDVR0fBC8wLTAroCmgJ4YlaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFy dHNzbC5jb20vY3J0dTEtY3JsLmNybDCBjgYIKwYBBQUHAQEEgYEwfzA5Bggr BgEFBQcwAYYtaHR0cDovL29jc3Auc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3N1Yi9jbGFzczEv Y2xpZW50L2NhMEIGCCsGAQUFBzAChjZodHRwOi8vYWlhLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNv bS9jZXJ0cy9zdWIuY2xhc3MxLmNsaWVudC5jYS5jcnQwIwYDVR0SBBwwGoYY aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCM pgcOpxRJazPzEBYnhGENuQqzXeLyA3a8XL7YaxaAJwV7ucDVkyQHu35PUEkh vVgIKnxq6N9WxHiO6GK/imdwS3LrUBbs+0v+95m6YhJv6ZfvAHTyTLqrozXU ohR5NRFeL0p1OfK1llnl/I71Fe/JNgxJHDn1puzsFoJD3zYCKgNdST3FPNIb 2v/xIiubuB85tiJSWUlc56OkCdBK3ZgBnwYV8LxFmpOlwedaHC6sxIk1rsuX BHbRIJwLFy2LqVtNm0M5NzBVyPQf72lPn/aaJLbqY5DDm4/lSy94R+CKXabE 6lWan7xmbqdDDlMxGbpMRWV2Cxi5ONp4uNgNcwI6MYIClzCCApMCAQEwgZQw gYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYD VQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYD VQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQQIDBi8sMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCggdgwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqG SIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTMwNzEzMDM1OTM0WjAjBgkqhkiG 9w0BCQQxFgQUCCPcAk75Kg4GD/rSMbol1tTaaEgweQYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMWww ajALBglghkgBZQMEASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEWMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAKBggq hkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4D AgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAF/cbrsjwdLe0 dZRDrzrjlTHU9aPuvcfu3oQ4OVkxoi9FJFMQw35H6L8TvmpEVNexrniPuCcD xlTZAmIpNi59EhdcC+tezZXXdvQGks0snRB5dAVnrqfScAPlBOlj2KArlOt1 KIBAi2EVwBbx4fQGC0Y3/yKlmeTkON/0WKKqBni6+IDrhstVL5SShiaxBXSt noRMSpz2h4fzbLUDwSaDqp5ud2/o76muLlrsmBGXkO3ycOelz6AQCOJJJ/U6 ZXItf5ohlNj/3UGJPXEaajZQWV8ZKUK55Cp8wpOX4Pj8lOx+anUdrsVAGcjn VkiUtRzAF+JHUBmZDp3BY1M7aP1QaA== --3825401791-737655771-1373687975=:81901-- From superuser@gmail.com Fri Jul 12 22:02:23 2013 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 F39E31F0D36 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 cr8tJLUKt9un for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063FC21F9E01 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id m6so1316528wiv.14 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -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=c0Kdq6+wwd97QcorH1IhcSKPu5ZR9dyh+xZGg0HjSGQ=; b=0aqXgR8te70hrG4t1ySxSGfERjdjIeuGa/6cOpbnKNGe7OLpfG9B0Uj6QaSOGOH4wA hbeh4FUtGb3SwO2P2kCEjjcC8t+gd5XENSLaZFAe7J5n58KLEtaE0YebeJK+zHOmQqdQ Um9aEQOef5Mlk5y9vcCjiI+4DIhua/ZLRS43vGh+fb51FV3WDLYDckOBdm2HKnlSmcaM G9oMILog04pCAKe2PFozXR+R3NI5tw7mtagBBsti4f/coangAOfnd+uO8BGYn43UE6IC FhkUAZCnd07EodVHSblZOjk/Ob73XYff4YCAaw8BixKfyJjkEDizu0Mnbm952BKzbvem Zyeg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.89.231 with SMTP id br7mr3431958wib.19.1373691741166; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130713020137.14506.qmail@joyce.lan> <51E0BF62.90605@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:02:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: John R Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba25543616d04e15d88d8 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:02:23 -0000 --e89a8f3ba25543616d04e15d88d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:59 PM, John R Levine wrote: > (1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved" >>>> >>> I guess it's OK, but it seems awfully specific to spam filtering. >>> >> > I suspect you are confusing core mechanism with specific application. >> >> For each application, such as restaurant reviews, the semantics of the >> rating are defined by the application. >> > > The text on page 4 says that a high well behaved score is a hint not to > take a bad rating too seriously. (If that's not what it's supposed to > mean, the text needs to be rewritten.) > > Like I said, that seems awfully specific to spam filtering. I think I > understand what it means in an online abuse context, but I don't understand > what it means anywhere else. > > The other optional attributes seem adequately generic, but this one is > just odd. > > In the restaurant context, I would probably set a high value for it if it's a restaurant that's well-known in the community as a stand-up place that will fix problems when they happen versus one that doesn't care much about what its ratings are. Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a local incident versus a trending problem. -MSK --e89a8f3ba25543616d04e15d88d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:59 PM, John R Levine <johnl@tau= gh.com> wrote:
(1) "rater-authenticity" has been changed to "well-behaved&q= uot;
I guess it's OK, but it seems awfully specific to spam filtering.

I suspect you are confusing core mechanism with specific application.

For each application, such as restaurant reviews, the semantics of the rati= ng are defined by the application.

The text on page 4 says that a high well behaved score is a hint not to tak= e a bad rating too seriously. =A0(If that's not what it's supposed = to mean, the text needs to be rewritten.)

Like I said, that seems awfully specific to spam filtering. =A0I think I un= derstand what it means in an online abuse context, but I don't understa= nd what it means anywhere else.

The other optional attributes seem adequately generic, but this one is just= odd.


In the restaurant context, I would pro= bably set a high value for it if it's a restaurant that's well-know= n in the community as a stand-up place that will fix problems when they hap= pen versus one that doesn't care much about what its ratings are.

Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given= user is a local incident versus a trending problem.

-MSK=
--e89a8f3ba25543616d04e15d88d8-- From johnl@taugh.com Fri Jul 12 22:31:34 2013 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 B83471F0D42 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:31:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.654 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 SlI9wIkU2Z3w for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF84721F9A7A for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 52523 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2013 05:31:33 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=cd2a.51e0e635.k1307; bh=iJA/30AAUCmActu/viSUjfvvIuy8cZqLYgUJvN/ldo0=; b=E032tQqSr9VobhT7O5Mu09XEPLyqvJ2/VBqgnpFKOJZ57wDsu9tOelQCSMoTUDidaetotDxOXL7u5lqfv3kkxnjo7WAiMWXKJyn3wS0du8xuMl5rEawMcwwfxbGqKS7eDlN3RPwdJ4kTrtCcXn4h0Mpoh7HzbR7x2fPQ1L3z0Fov27/Cm3vYErbDM7lif4YkAhhKqSIruCr6H3nV+VoMI3PiJiIBi8/VO6amGrIe1fDLot5Y22D4nK/3gNFyeaMm DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=cd2a.51e0e635.k1307; bh=iJA/30AAUCmActu/viSUjfvvIuy8cZqLYgUJvN/ldo0=; b=PsBEjNT5gslcYv8DNcWuhRDX5X+rD6OmetjHLiLnmtXzvNRMStA/nxbhEHMMZWpP449l3g0wIApSUH1RwHE9dBs/h73izr60E1LMctzKu5Nm98jV3iP1+hpBgbnWNZ9MvI6Y0KEzcUTXR+aCdly2jvfz21yJPUpRo5WMCZ444dJE2jPfNtJQpkmUQEvnJxJTmKPCI9vG/NaX4M2Zrfx0jT/Z35xT7AB5zI11pcsFqCybfXu8s2UGhlRwneC9uZkD Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 13 Jul 2013 05:31:11 -0000 Date: 13 Jul 2013 01:31:33 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" In-Reply-To: References: <20130713020137.14506.qmail@joyce.lan> <51E0BF62.90605@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:31:34 -0000 > Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a > local incident versus a trending problem. Makes sense. I think it could be clearer, will send text when I'm awake. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. From johnl@iecc.com Sat Jul 13 11:42:43 2013 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 CC2A221F9A5B for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:42:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.449, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 HS+qoGygL4F5 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113F021F9AAE for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11127 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2013 18:42:35 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Jul 2013 18:42:35 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51e19f9b.xn--30v786c.k1307; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=/bA2vG0lnaLxqzJVUIMtkcgItYyVYmW3huTJxrYtP2I=; b=zvm0M8YEVG6WjSLJhdNZafmhbcIJ3IqwDOGROcp/tAL9nL+E83OtKSwJo+E2Ky/zenrUL6JqTwLmdosNSxpO7BPIHNM1r38m/yLXixvIS3UxhJiFG7auKuOx/rMei4OrSw6HPBv4ipnZtgq/IeJb6m/bXnoy+IXcWwXG1TsOvGlLw5dLZxugVSRx4KpdAPYP5EBuBPRoZvpsGyN9apkalTmfTeMOAq44O403CXszHU/m7qvlCVFUM+P3IES2ucwS DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51e19f9b.xn--30v786c.k1307; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=/bA2vG0lnaLxqzJVUIMtkcgItYyVYmW3huTJxrYtP2I=; b=tlfyn6iyvLN6/xYZuQ5zxlghVDWcHA80jf0scsjl+/auN4gvUvEcUaQkQdcckdtZwKayjSuZTCAFzG5ilaPtl0Zyico7RzhjS8j7FhiZzCB5zZbmCu9ldE3/1cFQeNeL4gFore9/nVqNKQoCcYvFWc4g1BJCwsSK5K0wMu26CAbGih3PWmEaCmSrrEO6r2K0QFsaJf2mEvoTICSXHhiLyedoktPq9ELgmptThXkaMlIdct+zC4tiAshnB3fsuwgu Date: 13 Jul 2013 18:42:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: domainrep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: johnl@taugh.com Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:42:43 -0000 In article you write: >> Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a >> local incident versus a trending problem. How about this: well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. If the entity's rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is likely an aberration. For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between hosting providers. From superuser@gmail.com Mon Jul 15 10:12:48 2013 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 5F38011E81AD for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 vOfT51l4v5fS for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DA111E8133 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c10so3179361wiw.4 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -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=is2fG9sF8zbsS3bOKKWbzphyccLmSM92LnlNrEAq8F0=; b=xMxizRY4W4ybHrVaZGkGboJNbeHHiV+pPCV3FEUgw7tRmvGJYhhKWB2AH2fo7wnvWV 6q78RU/VXO695mpi7Xk7O6nLc720hHBdOI0idcFeYxueTX4Q9k3jDNPT1/SQ36TNU8Hh /GbT8HgPba+5nyWsBPkgoN4bFmieSszgndwE/K0mOmnyBQ5KOLQgyok8loNISIlIjus3 ZYnFt6Dspf2wOf0JqZA1TMIBj21pkw2/8qfPJE8FnBZJwmmFXriFxwoUyYBoVqOYd2p8 20HDXbUS00XuzE8VefP3Zu3KI/QolaFvKLG32EKUdUr1frB9ot8BbS9/UOxwGE5IEPfk qIOQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.89.231 with SMTP id br7mr9701500wib.19.1373908366635; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba25525b8f204e18ff833 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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, 15 Jul 2013 17:12:48 -0000 --e89a8f3ba25525b8f204e18ff833 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article you write: > >> Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a > >> local incident versus a trending problem. > > How about this: > > well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the > long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a > floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. If the entity's > rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is > likely an aberration. For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high > well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible > network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved > score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between > hosting providers. > > > Close. The second sentence isn't quite what's intended; if the "well-behaved" score is high, then a client can expect a unusual rating (high or low) to be short-lived. I don't think there's a need to tie the two values together as your text has done. Does that make sense? -MSK --e89a8f3ba25525b8f204e18ff833 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.= com> wrote:
In article <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307130131020.62942@joyce.lan> you w= rite:
>> Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user = is a
>> local incident versus a trending problem.

How about this:

well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the
long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a
floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. =A0If the entity's=
rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is
likely an aberration. =A0For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible
network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved
score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between
hosting providers.



Close.=A0 Th= e second sentence isn't quite what's intended; if the "well-be= haved" score is high, then a client can expect a unusual rating (high = or low) to be short-lived.=A0 I don't think there's a need to tie t= he two values together as your text has done.

Does that make sense?

-MSK
--e89a8f3ba25525b8f204e18ff833-- From superuser@gmail.com Mon Jul 15 11:46:33 2013 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 265BD21E8127 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 QaWWWJXhRyAp for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A61C21E8124 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id l18so10335654wgh.26 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -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=MCskCNB3uwIZa7BL6s/Z/PydhqsGHpBr4x1i8VUGp0M=; b=QbW763Ep9ImUYx56N3P52vRYa7IJBt9pIPnMlrh2y2Sa4nxCIw1EWHuA9xqWorSpQ5 wCjs/A54VnSXkfrLVfhFSw3OrxCHZXWx3Pi8piuQi9QgNG5C9BNCTEqLPvbAdAqjl5ia zCRL8m01RKr/WcZ6hAqAjyf6DAzvVPrpSsLuEVMn1JvEQOedoGMmJoMkjdZaOlu9dG6j harPLlZpNkNxNqb2ogcKAbq1Jh0P4ymx7XtbEYIVXb2WrFje7aa7DytsnntyOQ8YAuRG y0gJlqwjTmLU0RYHTayjxx6+RoBbO6Xe1IGT1gDmOZ25FVMpRw9q9xBbem6CmQCjIASV tX0g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.48.116 with SMTP id k20mr33274734wjn.23.1373913991321; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba975e6679d0904e1914744 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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, 15 Jul 2013 18:46:33 -0000 --047d7ba975e6679d0904e1914744 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse the XML): An indication of what the reputation provider would normally expect as a rating for the subject. This allows the client to note that the current rating is or is not in line with expectations. Any objections? -MSK On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> In article you write: >> >> Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a >> >> local incident versus a trending problem. >> >> How about this: >> >> well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the >> long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a >> floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. If the entity's >> rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is >> likely an aberration. For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high >> well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible >> network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved >> score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between >> hosting providers. >> >> >> > Close. The second sentence isn't quite what's intended; if the > "well-behaved" score is high, then a client can expect a unusual rating > (high or low) to be short-lived. I don't think there's a need to tie the > two values together as your text has done. > > Does that make sense? > > -MSK > --047d7ba975e6679d0904e1914744 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (pl= ease excuse the XML):

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <t hangText=3D"n= ormal-rating:"> An indication of what the reputation
=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 provider would normally expect as a ratin= g for the subject.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 This allows the client to note t= hat the current rating is
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 or = is not in line with expectations. </t>

Any objections?
-MSK



On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Murray= S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM, John L= evine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
In article <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307130131020.62942@joyce.lan> you w= rite:
>> Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user = is a
>> local incident versus a trending problem.

How about this:

well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the
long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a
floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. =A0If the entity's=
rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is
likely an aberration. =A0For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible
network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved
score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between
hosting providers.



Close.= =A0 The second sentence isn't quite what's intended; if the "w= ell-behaved" score is high, then a client can expect a unusual rating = (high or low) to be short-lived.=A0 I don't think there's a need to= tie the two values together as your text has done.

Does that make sense?
-MSK

--047d7ba975e6679d0904e1914744-- From dcrocker@gmail.com Wed Jul 17 16:20:21 2013 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 E53A321F9655 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:20:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 S1ThyjFF0rlR for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x22a.google.com (mail-oa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8A611E80CC for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j6so3413335oag.15 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:20:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d6crDdui9rambJChGAJWtsoGGQ97BuZ2jHPlmpKYm+M=; b=HedDuT61tPUvI5ByYe42wit+BcMNUpRfzwO/DmROatP7Fu2Ovd7pYCV5mr2qRVln+v nY+C4tIpdc0uPbboL3HKmzyK5g+EqmB0dpXufYf6YLw8QsqxtYM7hx9w8eAmKZTzFVWa mg0um1pSVGAy5bizICm6hMX4Svpeso08Iit2bGDWOK1KqsSDrkmQU5IzHRgiP6/7IHNi +NTpTTJvzQscBa50yAzYcC9sQNU35QzTUdRF3nazoPkp0gQ+HakFcAoz5acsK56k/Pia mBzNBKhF9BbF3+tMo1jIGK4zC38Ov3ElqCUOWf+dk0yy3xBQTS5f3+xqMfkMrE4tMgL9 ET2w== X-Received: by 10.60.70.4 with SMTP id i4mr10774536oeu.11.1374103212420; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z2sm10806751obi.3.2013.07.17.16.20.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51E72685.3080605@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:19:33 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine References: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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, 17 Jul 2013 23:20:21 -0000 On 7/15/2013 11:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse the XML): > > An indication of what the reputation > provider would normally expect as a rating for the subject. > This allows the client to note that the current rating is > or is not in line with expectations. > > Any objections? John -- since my reading of this thread has you as currently holding the token... As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues the I-D with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I can start the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg agreeing that the doc is done. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From superuser@gmail.com Wed Jul 17 17:01:39 2013 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 7609221F9D4F for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 CA92SiIw0d3Q for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896A221F9D45 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z11so2370290wgg.22 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:37 -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=TDfJFQx6URJEZ5AA1BZyYhEnMm4m9c/p+S5vk+BFvSo=; b=oiAk+3F+3lLxTosJJH0rnsI1oALd5N9VfJuI1W7WquMe3aZLs8UAqv4um9xGXVoFbF t4rjhTsk2Pqgeqt3oFr779qeKL+iNmjmigILMcC5MmmgIQjbsGUoosHOHSe1Ss+29Mwa el9+16Grb3AQi22YeC8LAirMDvmYDw8TgE8itMjxWisfD5pUBl/AY2Bt8IdDnF7JPNL4 bMW2NCURr4YNDbeNldgowYPs/EufDaxaTFYfPKhiJckc40j++DzcpT4uqNH9KjQbtYob EW28PiAs1PPMr9Mol7OHjnOHcLwZzvCYdUYMO+58GOxWz/lxKKSRIn8m0WJYrhYpk6Jq Anxw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.239.225 with SMTP id vv1mr6635335wjc.63.1374105697532; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51E72685.3080605@gmail.com> References: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> <51E72685.3080605@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:01:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Dave Crocker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493384fc41a904e1bde981 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , John Levine Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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, 18 Jul 2013 00:01:39 -0000 --089e01493384fc41a904e1bde981 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 7/15/2013 11:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse the XML): >> >> An indication of what the >> reputation >> provider would normally expect as a rating for the >> subject. >> This allows the client to note that the current rating is >> or is not in line with expectations. >> >> Any objections? >> > > > John -- since my reading of this thread has you as currently holding > the token... > > As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues the I-D > with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I can start > the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg agreeing that the > doc is done. > > > If you're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM, and Pete was fine with it. I can post a new document if you think we're agreed enough here to move ahead. Seems unlikely we'll get other responses at this rate, unfortunately. -MSK --089e01493384fc41a904e1bde981 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@= gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2013 11:46 AM, Mur= ray S. Kucherawy wrote:
John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse the XML):

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0<t hangText=3D"normal-rating:"> An indic= ation of what the reputation
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 provider would normally expect as a rating = for the subject.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 This allows the client to note that the cur= rent rating is
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 or is not in line with expectations. </t= >

Any objections?


John -- since my reading of this thread has you as currently holding
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the token...

As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues the I-D wi= th the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I can = start the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg agreeing th= at the doc is done.



If y= ou're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM, and P= ete was fine with it.=A0 I can post a new document if you think we're a= greed enough here to move ahead.=A0 Seems unlikely we'll get other resp= onses at this rate, unfortunately.

-MSK

--089e01493384fc41a904e1bde981-- From dcrocker@gmail.com Wed Jul 17 17:17:54 2013 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 A2C8A21F92C2 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 ao5BpGJiNaYm for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAE421F91CE for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id dn14so3070181obc.16 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BxMUeOpltsEz4dfpCl1RYCZAVlPnny4P9QHtryTbdz0=; b=RkvMI2qtkjGotRtbvUNExTywROFZdTRGszf5tdVSIeZ1xC2CVvamImc3RytzCAboxG Gt5c9lp16mMMHCaUOtMkojXIHsOd7ycab0W7WLDsa284WuXQ3EIUjfATHYE0NeP7UEFz dtiZi2ME+T3lN4Gk6J4JQH2aVsMlmNeuFCxwmpzjv4BKAghhu10w7nZ2qTofNzTXLi8G c15O/lvmbeiutFtvGSA+hz6WjCMO5kuKXRFAnc6LbNg9cDpApj9O/9Y8LqGl5p7hGs55 sEJV4LKysxjQI0orF4+iuIm6CER2JUbRL6WetZT2N5+un0Pk/vwpUDm9IAXqOkD9lYH7 V0ng== X-Received: by 10.182.72.170 with SMTP id e10mr5207161obv.62.1374106669336; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qa4sm11329362oeb.5.2013.07.17.17.17.47 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51E73407.6000706@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:17:11 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> <51E72685.3080605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , John Levine Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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, 18 Jul 2013 00:17:55 -0000 On 7/17/2013 5:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues the > I-D with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I > can start the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg > agreeing that the doc is done. > > If you're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM, > and Pete was fine with it. I can post a new document if you think we're > agreed enough here to move ahead. Seems unlikely we'll get other > responses at this rate, unfortunately. Dandy. Make it so. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dcrocker@gmail.com Wed Jul 17 21:10:26 2013 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 6B9A621F9957 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:10:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 3-QWfT7cm63b for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x22f.google.com (mail-oa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6074521F9C12 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m1so3674388oag.34 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:10:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:x-priority :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZMa2EgHxvfqn1OH5Bi+qy2vSbv3iUk/GzkCBUmLdlfA=; b=MaJ+ijKXQD19cbhZHW//Rio9Be6WR60Dm9kWp2L9mtlczaU7ST2OXVvaRrGIvVuSRq hbMx2traMPtG1raE4/bpVLIm0by4vabE751coK1OYZ6BqpPPeXQvr2bR624XRIqxqFwm lWQRGsfSWER7X4JUaTtXP2xucUcHuT4JHNzX0pNNvUTIylVLF24S13Xvev0vkmHjDlE7 2yz9ptjOUM0epYPjVj47DXfcll3cNoXtOHTiNQM5HRVmkVz6K40LTYZc9df8MJ0aZyU7 eFW7UN3Qx8igLHrgOtz/Jh9a7rjWIUAIwtfUnYvLRAtcVD21JgyYCVROdhEX2ejZ9fWq jcUQ== X-Received: by 10.60.123.82 with SMTP id ly18mr11371998oeb.75.1374120623704; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z2sm12460415obi.3.2013.07.17.21.10.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51E76A89.5030004@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:09:45 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" X-Priority: 2 (High) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [domainrep] One Week WGLC for Repute docs 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, 18 Jul 2013 04:10:26 -0000 Folks, This message initiates a ONE WEEK working group final last call on: Title : A Model for Reputation Reporting Filename : draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt Title : A Reputation Query Protocol Filename : draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.txt Title : A Media Type for Reputation Interchange Filename : draft-ietf-repute-media-type-09.txt Title : A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers Filename : draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08.txt WGLC will close at 2013-07-25 00:00 UTC. I'll continue to be the shepherd for these documents. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From tony@att.com Thu Jul 18 09:34:41 2013 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 C090211E8147 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2FCrpqdPKnrX for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C9721F9D62 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id a1918e15.0.1210210.00-441.3353415.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:34:35 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 51e8191b54b03384-47e714b39f9f23c0d44bc45eeb921504453556ca Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6IGYYjf016723 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:34:34 -0400 Received: from alpi131.aldc.att.com (alpi131.aldc.att.com [130.8.218.69]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6IGYPQj016627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:34:28 -0400 Received: from alpi153.aldc.att.com (alpi153.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by alpi131.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:34:09 GMT Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6IGY85g028525 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:34:08 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6IGXwBF028289 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:34:02 -0400 Received: from [135.70.201.233] (vpn-135-70-201-233.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.201.233]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20130718163358gw100bhhlde> (Authid: tony); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:33:58 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.201.233] Message-ID: <51E818F5.4030602@att.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:33:57 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan> <51E72685.3080605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050006060308060309040103" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=FtiyCRXq c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=iEh7Qm9fA4cA:10 a=3ukmKKXcZEAA:10 a=doAz8czNqnQA:10 a=ofM] X-AnalysisOut: [gfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=ImgmDX8O] X-AnalysisOut: [p4QA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=UmPRSPsd4lELlb] X-AnalysisOut: [0O3bYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQ] X-AnalysisOut: [A:10 a=8aEWqAyJBEF7Vg1nNIEA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=tXsnliwV] X-AnalysisOut: [7b4A:10 a=iN_z85yKjUcrO4-h:21] Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC 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, 18 Jul 2013 16:34:41 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050006060308060309040103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ah, ambiguity in the interpretation of "John, Pete and I". Salutation to John, or a list of names that includes John. Anyway, I was going to suggest "normally-well-behaved" as coming closest to the intended meaning, but I think "normal-rating" is a good name too. +1 to this change. And +1 to sending this and the other docs on to the IESG. Tony Hansen On 7/17/2013 8:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Crocker > wrote: > > On 7/15/2013 11:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse > the XML): > > An indication of what > the reputation > provider would normally expect as a rating for > the subject. > This allows the client to note that the > current rating is > or is not in line with expectations. > > Any objections? > > > > John -- since my reading of this thread has you as currently holding > the token... > > As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues > the I-D with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing > i's -- I can start the formal publication sequence, which begins > with the wg agreeing that the doc is done. > > > > If you're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM, > and Pete was fine with it. I can post a new document if you think > we're agreed enough here to move ahead. Seems unlikely we'll get > other responses at this rate, unfortunately. > > -MSK > > > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep --------------050006060308060309040103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ah, ambiguity in the interpretation of "John, Pete and I". Salutation to John, or a list of names that includes John.

Anyway, I was going to suggest "normally-well-behaved" as coming closest to the intended meaning, but I think "normal-rating" is a good name too.

+1 to this change.

And +1 to sending this and the other docs on to the IESG.

    Tony Hansen

On 7/17/2013 8:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2013 11:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse the XML):

         <t hangText="normal-rating:"> An indication of what the reputation
                provider would normally expect as a rating for the subject.
                This allows the client to note that the current rating is
                or is not in line with expectations. </t>

Any objections?


John -- since my reading of this thread has you as currently holding
        the token...

As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues the I-D with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing i's -- I can start the formal publication sequence, which begins with the wg agreeing that the doc is done.



If you're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM, and Pete was fine with it.  I can post a new document if you think we're agreed enough here to move ahead.  Seems unlikely we'll get other responses at this rate, unfortunately.

-MSK



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

--------------050006060308060309040103-- From dcrocker@gmail.com Sun Jul 28 22:31:51 2013 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 AF3B221F9FDA for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:31:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 eFoZJgDYCXLK for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-x230.google.com (mail-ee0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE09921F9FCE for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l10so654718eei.7 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:31:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:x-priority :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VmXsK19JDST3m2fXjUupeHsNo8GW4m8mN9R4ccWsy5A=; b=t+fG5UnL5mrfHX8TcgwbNMrza87gEDBddNanWEEMWve54YN0lfDnb0K6YjudqwaGE7 bobiPOP+TdjDlNgD5WBCC/NEgUIAcZQLuRzhgYvqyVKdaM1GwGS+H0T1kWRkdKihNIi3 1FEy1NifkfeY9pujjdPIXIeMq62qPsYQ4LchIoqoM9cxKFuXBpTWIGegHsOfG/7cqeXg fAjpZg4nhh1XQjTPi2it/eTQWGoxmV2uyPd4GNhq9fxm1Ub0iTmED0TNztosjAVjIDqb Fsyt/GXfGZ/SS+ghTuHMnd6VexC2l+RSSHvsaUTINX2Wns7ruzrySeQ6sryKa0O1YfI7 P/4A== X-Received: by 10.15.32.67 with SMTP id z43mr58426807eeu.24.1375075909896; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.203] (e179046222.adsl.alicedsl.de. [85.179.46.222]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bj46sm99577108eeb.13.2013.07.28.22.31.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51F5FE40.4030707@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:31:44 +0200 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" X-Priority: 2 (High) References: <51E76A89.5030004@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51E76A89.5030004@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] One Week WGLC for Repute docs 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, 29 Jul 2013 05:31:51 -0000 To note this for the wg mailing list record: No comments were received. I am assessing these documents as having wg support and will now request their publication. d/ On 7/18/2013 6:09 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > This message initiates a ONE WEEK working group final last call on: > > > Title : A Model for Reputation Reporting > Filename : draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt > > > Title : A Reputation Query Protocol > Filename : draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.txt > > > Title : A Media Type for Reputation Interchange > Filename : draft-ietf-repute-media-type-09.txt > > > Title : A Reputation Response Set for Email > Identifiers > Filename : draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08.txt > > > WGLC will close at 2013-07-25 00:00 UTC. > > I'll continue to be the shepherd for these documents. > > > d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net