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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 18 January 2012 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC3321F86F5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:14:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZrxexxNMKs7 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:14:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C0321F855A for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:14:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60EAE40058; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:23:26 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4F16EFCA.2000808@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:14:02 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnUz-k3=WKhRedc0MPr0EoGz+NWBKNi=qGh0RdoK6tG2Kw@mail.gmail.com> <CADBvc9-m1em1=3i78B+VKUc96VK3jMwzHZpuT2WcFUCysv2Shg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU2NoLLRkMNo8+CaOWL_f=oE2T4i-uZdG5utJvCY9+WjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU2NoLLRkMNo8+CaOWL_f=oE2T4i-uZdG5utJvCY9+WjA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation.all@tools.ietf.org, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:14:04 -0000

Mykyta, your continued involvement would be helpful.

Martin, here is my perspective...

On 12/17/11 7:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> My concerns over motivation could be addressed by changing the
> introduction to remove the dependency on [W3C-PUBRULES] and providing
> a generic motivation.

That was done in version -01:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-01.txt

> More inline.
> 
> On 17 December 2011 17:20, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> 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?

Mykyta might have been following the example of several other in-process
registration requests:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations/

>>> 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.

Martin, is there *harm* in completing these registrations via
informational RFCs?

Note that we typically do the same with URN Namespace registrations, see
these recent examples:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6288/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6289/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6338/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6453/

>>> 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.

Martin, I think this issue was addressed in version -01. BTW the latest
version is -02:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation/

>>> 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.

Martin, please check version -02 to see if your concern has been
addressed. The explanatory text is much less prolix than it was previously.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/