Last Call Review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

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 2013-09-05
Authors Nathaniel Borenstein, Murray Kucherawy
Draft last updated 2013-10-29
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-2013-10-29
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-10-29



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.




 Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser at] 


 07 September, 2013 10:41 AM


 Roni Even


 draft-ietf-repute-model.all at; ietf; General Area Review Team


 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 at

> 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 <>.

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


 paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”



Thanks again,