Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:40:12 -0700

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-13.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2013-09-15

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-13

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

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

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:59:33 -0700

IESG Evaluation has completed for all four drafts, and they're on the verge
of entering the RFC Editor queue.  Pete

There's one thing that should be brought to the WG's attention, in case it
will be a problem for anyone: The JSON format described in the media-type
document changed a bit on the advice of a couple of IESG members more
well-versed in such things than I am.  Anyone interested should go have a
look and say something now if it's wrong-headed or going to create
problems.  I plan to modify the OpenDKIM implementation as soon as they
enter the RFC Editor queue.

-MSK

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:28:31 -0400

> look and say something now if it's wrong-headed or going to create problems.
>

In particular, since I was one of the ADs who asked for the changes, I'd
like to say a few words about them.  There are three main points:

1. The content-type parameter was moved into the JSON object.  It seemed
wrong to overload the media type wrapper with something that really belongs
in the payload.

2. The set of reputons in the response was changed from a bunch of JSON
objects that all have the same name to a JSON array.  JSON says that object
names SHOULD be unique, and it seemed wrong to violate that.  And as long
as the object names don't matter, it makes more sense to use an array.

3. The mechanism for defining the JSON format is no longer ABNF.  The JSON
spec already defines the ABNF for JSON, including all the delimiter
characters, the DQUOTEs, where the whitespace can go, and so on with other
fidgety bits.  It seemed wrong and risky to re-define all that here.
 Instead, the JSON format is now defined in terms of JSON primitives.

I think these are all important changes that go in the right direction.
 But the working group should review that, and anyone who disagrees should
raise an issue.

Barry, Applications AD