Re: [eppext] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: (with COMMENT)

[Gustavo Lozano <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Alissa,

Comments inline.

Regards,
Gustavo

On 2/17/16, 13:46, "Alissa Cooper" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: No Objection
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In general I agree with Ben's comments about <mark:treatyOrStatute> and
><mark:court>. I don't understand why these elements contain a smattering
>of the same child elements of <mark:trademark> (holder, contact, etc.),
>rather than just containing a <mark:trademark> as a child element in its
>entirety, and then adding in the additional treaty- or court-specific
>elements that are necessary. The way its specified in the document makes
>it hard to understand whether the child elements of
><mark:treatyOrStatute> and <mark:court> refer to the treaty/court ruling
>at issue, or to the trademark.
>

I am not a lawyer, but during the design of the spec, trademark experts
participated. Trademark is a type of the three types of marks described in
the document. There are some elements that are shared between the three
types of marks, and the first internal spec contemplated another object to
capture the shared elements, but considering that an SMD may contain
several marks, it started to get too complex. We decided that the current
design was easier to implement / understand.

>