RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

["Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My understanding is that you can have a downref to an informational document as long as it is mentioned in the writeup and in the IETF LC. This is not a reason to make this document a standard track document if it should  be informational.

Roni

 

From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 07 September, 2013 10:41 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-repute-model.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf; General Area Review Team
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

 

Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay.

 

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I was asked to review the 08 version but my comments from 07 were not addressed and I did not see any response. So I am resending my previous review

As for making it a standard track document, I am not sure since it looks to me as an overview and not standard. And there is no normative language in the document.

Roni Even

 

It was changed to Proposed Standard because of rules around referencing it normatively from other documents that are seeking Proposed Standard status.
 

 

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

[...]
Minor issues:

I was wondering why the “Further Discussion” section 9.3 is part of the security section. I think it should be a separate section.

 

The wording of 9.3 is meant to be security-specific, but that's buried in the word "use".  I'll make it more clear.
 

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 3 the end of 2^nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”

 

Fixed.

Thanks again,

-MSK