[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-repute-considerations-02

Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> Wed, 14 August 2013 16:28 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=ME28G8JhckRv9tznTFuUBhZ+XC2MVrHOAHXR5BglgIhRnAUbMZ7D1DYSk5ek1VcWQn4wx/Qw926PtDpV1my/EYCe7dBlZwnAKhiEfOlJ22lLNGCOr4BxDLyeZMUiNBnm; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type;
Message-ID: <520BB01C.6040502@gondrom.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:28:12 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130804 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-repute-considerations.all@tools.ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000603090104080804010603"
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-repute-considerations-02
Precedence: list

Hi,

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-repute-considerations-02
Title: Operational Considerations Regarding Reputation Services
Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom
Review Date: Aug-14

Status: Informational

Summary: I believe the draft is ready for publication.

Review:
The draft points out a number of good points and pitfalls regarding
reputation systems and over-reliance on them.
And I believe it is ready to publication.

Two suggestions:
1. in section 5: before you pointed out correctly the potential problem
with false positives (falsely backlisted) and that a RSP should have a
mechanism/process to handle such cases. Especially if an operation
blocks based on the results from the RSP. It might be a useful idea to
add this recommendation to the list of bullet points after paragraph 5
in section 5, e.g. something like:
"- a pointer to a resolution process for disputed or inaccurate results
being reported by the RSP."
2. if the outlined information (aka the bullet point list in section 5)
is not available, a pointer to a system where this information can be
queried automatically should be provided by the RSP. Potentially
including advice on how the result has been computed and if it has been
wrongfully assigned to the blacklist, why this might have happened and
how this can be corrected.

Nits:
- section 5, 3rd paragraph
s/Reptuations should/Reputations should
s/i.e., some property/i.e. some property
- section 5, 5th paragraph
s/For example, it shoudl be possible/For example, it should be possible

Best regards, Tobias

[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-reput… Tobias Gondrom