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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 18 January 2012 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC3321F86F5 for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:14:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.716
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZrxexxNMKs7 for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:14:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C0321F855A for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:14:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60EAE40058; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:23:26 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:14:02 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
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 <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>,
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: 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:

> 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?

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

>>> 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:

>>> 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:

>>> 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 Saint-Andre