A Media Type for Reputation Interchange
draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13
Yes
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(2013-09-15)
Unknown
Thanks for the excellent work in resolving the remaining issues.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -12)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-09 for -12)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-11 for -12)
Unknown
And the antiparticle of the reputon is... a disreputon? It seems strange that the context for the reputon is relegated to a parameter of the media type, when it's really a semantic attribute, not a type/encoding attribute. Suggest moving it inside the reputon or reputon collection structures. In "sample-size": JSON doesn't have a notion of the length of an integer, so saying "64-bit" here seems odd, unless you mean that it MUST NOT exceed 2**64-1. I agree with Barry's comment that a collection of reputons (repu-meson?) should be an array rather than an object.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-10 for -12)
Unknown
If I am reading this ABNF correctly:
reputon = "{" [ reputon-object
*(value-separator reputon-object) ] "}"
reputon-object = "reputon" name-separator response-set
...then a reputon is one or more reputon objects, each of which is denoted with the string "reputon". IOW:
{ "reputon": { ... }, "reputon": {...} }
Is that correct? If so, isn't a little weird to use "reputon" as the string that denotes a reputon object, which is a _part_ of a reputon, not a whole reputon? Or am I just not understanding the ABNF (which is quite possible—I'm hardly an expert).
The relationship between the term "clutch hitter" and "choke" is not going to be obvious to many readers (e.g., not obvious to me). This may not be the best example to use to make the point you are making here.
Are assertions not allowed to contain whitespace characters? I ask because you use names like "choke-hitter" and "is-good" instead of "choke hitter" and "is good". Given that these appear in quotes, it seems unnecessary to substitute dashes for spaces.