Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00

Martin Thomson <> Sun, 18 December 2011 02:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DB121F8507 for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:46:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.716
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkSXnjqP3iWa for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BF721F8505 for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:46:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eaad1 with SMTP id d1so4386689eaa.31 for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:46:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CfSUG9709MDSUCAHtSXwqbfkaDAGEw1Fy37RsFN7dlk=; b=APW8M0SuiSTl+rgCvroS6x4UDUjAro6EniFsitkmrZUL3JiEEE2dl/nNFO5kwaSEB4 /ecFdX/JRE358QAP5jDO7KiDGYK/awtEVznVOQOiF9ns7VwjIP0YgM+x9vFCtvp192sB irsT+9Y3oXLoqcR8BrmN4jUbmeVYauxvFZFBs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id a15mr330209bkt.109.1324176403052; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:46:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:46:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:46:43 +1100
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:46:44 -0000

My concerns over motivation could be addressed by changing the
introduction to remove the dependency on [W3C-PUBRULES] and providing
a generic motivation.

More inline.

On 17 December 2011 17:20, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> wrote:
> The Intended status is Informational.

That much is clear from the first page of the draft.  I can't see any
reason for why Informational was chosen over Proposed Standard.  Can
you share one?

>>There are some minor issues.
>> Minor Issues:
>> The semantics of the relation type are quite clear, though the
>> introduction does not make a particularly compelling case for an RFC.
>> The registration requirements of RFC 5988 require little more than the
>> creation of a specification; that specification could be created
>> anywhere (say, in [W3C-PUBRULES]).  I find the motivations described
>> in the introduction to be not compelling.
> Publishing an RFC is an ideal way to accomplish RFC 5226 requirements
> for Specification Required, I think; additionally, whereas it is easy
> to initiate this work in IETF, it is not so easy to do this in W3C.

"It is easy" is not an especially good reason.

>> A more generic description would help.  A superficial reading might
>> infer that the W3C is the only potential customer of this work,
>> although it's clear that any organization that concerns itself with
>> IPR rights (IETF included) might use it. It would be better if the
>> specific use case were kept as an example, rather than the primary
>> motivation.
> I provide the description of W3C use to demonstrate the current use of
> relation type, and this description in no way means that other
> organizations cannot use it.

My point is that the document should not focus on one single use case
in one document. It should establish the usefulness of the relation
type for a class of use cases and use the specific instance as an
example only. The way the document is written it barely even hints at
other uses.

>> Nits:
>> Including explanatory statements is unnecessary and distracting.
> I see no harm in them.

Extra words that don't contribute to understanding the message are
harmful.  I don't think these help.