> == Document Writeup ==

> === 1. Summary ===
>
> Who is the document shepherd?

D. Crocker

> Who is the responsible Area Director?

P. Resnick

> Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's
> abstract is usually good for this), and why the working group has
> chosen the requested publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).

Once there is a validated identifier associated with an object or activity, it is possible to develop and communicate its behavioral "reputation". The current draft is part of an effort to define a reputation query/report mechanism. This draft specifically defines the query/response protocol and its conveyance over HTTP.

> === 2. Review and Consensus ===
>
> Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the
> working group and external parties, and explain in a general sense
> how much of the interested community is behind the document. Explain
> anything notable about the discussion of the document.

The document has gone through multiple drafts, over a period of time,
that were discussed in the working group. Discussion was mild and
supportive, with no significant controversy. The working group 'style'
was mostly of a small, collaborative set of active participants.

The specified protocol is reasonable simple and flexible, tailored to
the semantics of requesting reputation-related attributes about a "subject".

> === 3. Intellectual Property ===
>
> Confirm that each author has stated that their direct, personal
> knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been
> disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. Explain briefly the
> working group discussion about any IPR disclosures regarding this
> document, and summarize the outcome.

The author is highly experienced with IETF work and the document IPR
standard is the default. No IPR concerns are anticipated.

> === 4. Other Points ===

None noted.