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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> Sat, 17 December 2011 06:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A10721F8783 for <>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:20:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D3gFl+T3zPCZ for <>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B6021F877F for <>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obcuz6 with SMTP id uz6so809720obc.31 for <>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:20:45 -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=iWMym2wiwadMtxvktQjhKjm4UZkBNwcSagZZ2V5Mdfw=; b=jIl3lajvf7+tL0lJyxbUn9SV9TkM9qu3l0k2TiDr/T3LByURWebnq7tyZZ+nT9L+v9 7p/z4J+q5Axsf8FP62B/mf8B+LvU62Edqn8gA7hCi25vgyzRrJptL0kwfRpeC3pM1xWz mIdrxMpNThs00JP1VwTUuT6QHgtsuKNE5z4Zs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id s2mr5635748obn.58.1324102845164; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:20:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:20:45 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 06:20:46 -0000


Thanks for a review.  Please see comments in-line.

2011/12/17 Martin Thomson <>:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> Document: draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00
> Reviewer: Martin Thomson
> Review Date: 2011-12-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2012-01-06
> IESG Telechat date: 2012-01-05
> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed
> standard.

The Intended status is Informational.

>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.

> 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.

> The field of applicability seems very narrow.  It would help if the
> draft could better motivate the creation of a machine-readable marker
> of this type.  That is, it might describe a use that a machine would
> have for this relation type.
> On face value, there is no reason that this should not be a standards
> track document, aside from the above concerns.

I think that Informational is Ok for this document, and that the scope
isn't limited by it in any way.

> Nits:
> Including explanatory statements like the following:
>   (The <ul> element is used to introduce an unordered, bulleted list in
>   HTML.)
> unnecessary and distracting.

I see no harm in them.

> In the examples, linking to a patent rather than a disclosure is
> potentially misleading.  A disclosure typically includes more
> information.  See <> for a
> specific example.

I will fix the examples correspondingly.

> The page header contains "<Document Title>".

Fixed as well.

Thanks for the review once more.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev