Thanks for your review, Roni. The Gen-ART reviews by you and the rest of the team are essential for me to do my work. And thank you authors for writing a clear and useful document. I must say that like Roni, I had some trouble with the document classification. It did read more as an informational document, and I think you could have referenced it with informational references. That being said, I do not see a danger where the document classification would somehow lead to misunderstanding somewhere, and if the authors want to refer to the terms defined in this document in a normative manner that is OK too. As a result, I took a "No-Objection" position for the document's approval in tomorrow's IESG telechat. Jari On Sep 7, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 2nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms” > > Fixed. > > Thanks again, > > -MSK > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art