Last Call Review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08
review-ietf-repute-model-08-genart-lc-even-2013-08-31-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-repute-model |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2013-09-10 | |
| Requested | 2013-08-29 | |
| Authors | Nathaniel Borenstein, Murray Kucherawy | |
| Draft last updated | 2013-08-31 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Roni Even
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff) Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Donald Eastlake (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-repute-model-08-genart-lc-even-2013-08-31 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 08 (document currently at 10) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2013-08-31 |
Review
review-ietf-repute-model-08-genart-lc-even-2013-08-31
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 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. Document: draft-ietf-repute-model-07 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2013–8–20 IETF LC End Date: 2013-8–29 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Major issues: 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. Nits/editorial comments: Section 3 the end of 2 nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”