[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-05.txt

Larry Masinter wrote:

>>Intended status: Proposed Standard
> 
> 
> Interesting. The .XML says "Best Current Practice". The generated
> .txt and .html don't, though. However, We're definitely
> intending BCP, this isn't a standards track document.
> 
>  
> 
>>Summary - this document is almost ready for publication. It has two 
>>nearly-editorial changes I'd like to see considered:
>>
>>- the reader has to dig to notice that there are two kinds of  URIs being 
>>registered with different requirements in the same namespace. It would 
>>be nice to say this pretty clearly ("These guidelines cover both 
>>provisional and permanent URI scheme registrations, which are part of 
>>the same URI namespace"), somewhere in Section 1.
> 
> 
> OK.
>  
> 
>>- 2.8 tries to say, "avoid trademark names", but doesn't say much about 
>>why this is a good idea, or (more relevant) how big a problem you have 
>>when someone registers your scheme name as trademark. The current text 
>>is probably good advice, I'm just asking if there is more guidance that 
>>could be provided, too.
> 
> 
> I think this is pretty fuzzy advice, alas. And there might be some
> dragons (or at least aligators) waiting in those waters.  I don't
> expect the "expert" doing "expert review" to review whether there is
> a legal trademark and whether the proposed registration is or isn't
> consistent with that trademark, in the various jurisdictions of the
> world.
> 
> I guess we should ask the person submitting the registration to
> assert that, as far as they know, the use of the URI scheme name
> doesn't have trademark problems. I might want some advice on how
> to word that, though.

This would be very reasonable (once you figure out what the words should 
be!).

It may be that all you're trying to do is call the submitter's attention 
to section 7.4 of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3978.txt, and say, "please 
do your best to keep us from getting sued if we come up with a scheme 
name that turns out to be a trademark" (a lawyer would, of course, say 
it differently :-)) This is actually less restrictive than the current 
text (current text discourages uses of trademarks, 3978 discourages use 
of trademarks unless the IETF has a right to use them in 
specifications), I think.

Spencer

> Larry

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art