Last Call Review of draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10
review-ietf-repute-media-type-10-genart-lc-yee-2013-08-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-repute-media-type
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-09-10
Requested 2013-08-15
Draft last updated 2013-08-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Peter Yee (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Peter Yee (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Peter Yee
State Completed
Review review-ietf-repute-media-type-10-genart-lc-yee-2013-08-30
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2013-08-30

Review
review-ietf-repute-media-type-10-genart-lc-yee-2013-08-30

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-media-type-10
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: August-27-2013
IETF LC End Date: August-29-2013
IESG Telechat date: September-12-2013

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in
the review. [Ready with minor issues.]

This draft directs IANA to register an application/reputon+json media type.
It also defines a new IANA registry for reputation application-specific uses
of that media type.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Authenticity and confidence ratings seem to be used interchangeably in the
document.  Authenticity is never defined, but it appears that it may
previously have been used in place of confidence.  The example spanning
pages 9 and 10 notes a confidence of 95% but uses that for the (undefined in
the document) authenticity value instead of the confidence value.  Either
define authenticity (which is absent in Section 3.1) or switch to
confidence.

Section 3.1, definition of rater: the wording of this definition could be
interpreted to mean either the party that is returning the rating
information in response to the query but which is not necessarily the party
creating the rating, or it could mean the party that created the rating.
This may go back to the muddled concept of authenticity (which seems to be
used to mean how much an unspecified "someone" believes that the rating
originated with the named rater) vs. confidence (how confident the rater is
in the rating).  This definition should be cleared up to remove the
ambiguity that floats throughout the document.

Nits:

Page 3, Section 3, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change "representaton" to
"representation".  Change "Javascript" to "JavaScript".

Page 3, Section 3, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: delete the 3rd occurrence of
"context".

Page 5, Section 4, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: after "given" is there a
missing "application" or "query"?

Page 6, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change "specificaiton" to
"specification".

Page 7, definition of "auth-value": What is this??

Page 7, definition of ext-value, 1st comment: I think "specific syntax is
specified in specific  application" lacks specificity. ;-)

Page 8, Section 6.2, 1st sentence after 1st example: who is "we", Kemo Sabe?
This seems to imply a rater who is rating the rater.  There's also the
aforementioned issue of what authenticity means vs. confidence.

Page 9, 2nd paragraph after the example: change "an" to "a".

Page 9, 3rd paragraph after the example, 1st sentence: change " idenfities"
to "identifies".


		-Peter Yee