draft-ietf-repute-media-type-09.txt   draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10.txt 
REPUTE Working Group N. Borenstein REPUTE Working Group N. Borenstein
Internet-Draft Mimecast Internet-Draft Mimecast
Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy
Expires: January 4, 2014 July 3, 2013 Expires: January 18, 2014 July 17, 2013
A Media Type for Reputation Interchange A Media Type for Reputation Interchange
draft-ietf-repute-media-type-09 draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the format of reputation response data This document defines the format of reputation response data
("reputons"), the media-type for packaging it, and definition of a ("reputons"), the media-type for packaging it, and definition of a
registry for the names of reputation applications and response sets. registry for the names of reputation applications and response sets.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Reputon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Reputon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Reputon Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Reputon Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Reputon Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Reputon Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1.1. Formal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1.1. Formal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. application/reputon+json Media Type Registration . . . . . 10 7.1. application/reputon+json Media Type Registration . . . . . 10
7.2. Reputation Applications Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Reputation Applications Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. See floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. See
Section 4 for discussion. Section 4 for discussion.
The following are OPTIONAL for all applications, to be used in The following are OPTIONAL for all applications, to be used in
contexts where they are appropriate: contexts where they are appropriate:
confidence: the level of certainty the reputation provider has that confidence: the level of certainty the reputation provider has that
the value presented is appropriate, expressed as a floating-point the value presented is appropriate, expressed as a floating-point
number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive.
well-behaved: The level of confidence that the rated identity is normal-rating: An indication of what the reputation provider would
typically well-behaved, expressed as a floating-point number normally expect as a rating for the subject. This allows the
between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. "Well-behaved" here means the client to note that the current rating is or is not in line with
identity being rated is unlikely to be associated with adverse expectations.
scores related to other assertions. One would, for example, have
a reasonable expectation that government agency or a popular bank
would be unlikely to develop a reputation for sending spam, so a
statement indicating a strong spam score for such an identity
would be unusual, and a client receiving such conflicting details
might decide to penalize such traffic less severely, or for a
shorter period of time. Note that this value might be entirely
subjective on the part of the reputation service provider; it need
not be based solely on aggregated data.
sample-size: The number of data points used to compute the rating, sample-size: The number of data points used to compute the rating,
possibly an approximation. Expressed as an unsigned 64-bit possibly an approximation. Expressed as an unsigned 64-bit
integer. Consumers can assume that the count refers to distinct integer. Consumers can assume that the count refers to distinct
data points rather than a count of aggregations (for example, data points rather than a count of aggregations (for example,
individual votes rather than aggregated vote counts) unless it is individual votes rather than aggregated vote counts) unless it is
specified out-of-band that some other interpretation is more specified out-of-band that some other interpretation is more
appropriate. The units are deliberately not normatively appropriate. The units are deliberately not normatively
specified, since not all reputation service providers will collect specified, since not all reputation service providers will collect
data the same way. data the same way.
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 8 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/