Hi Roni, I didn't see your previous review for some reason. I can't respond in full now as I'm about to travel, but I will over the long weekend (unless Andrew gets to it first).
Thanks, -MSK On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even <ron.even....@gmail.com> 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**** > > ** ** > > 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 2nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
