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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 16 December 2011 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5C921F84FB for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:20:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.939
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zqiddl4k-bi3 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193FB21F84F5 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eaad1 with SMTP id d1so3740463eaa.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:19:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=WZo8xdnehYp2mQj11RTqxchU4R/Ak0ujGK+xSHo+aco=; b=TV9cEJh/2INBblr3vWXOORUAb4dK5kq6YmZkPnyMOqW6fPvX8M+3R1OoPL3XieZnR7 J4Hxb35QVpe2qIVLyRcoAmjcFDQ2SdEVgGFaMV09YGBo3uY3BfPeq65hPCi+m2uhRH/6 /aRJYo40/FzqddIQ/6LD0uiEEr1sgQ/QbEtrg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id l20mr3358464bkd.55.1324077596605; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:19:56 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUz-k3=WKhRedc0MPr0EoGz+NWBKNi=qGh0RdoK6tG2Kw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: [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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:20:00 -0000

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.  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.

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

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.

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

In the examples, linking to a patent rather than a disclosure is
potentially misleading.  A disclosure typically includes more
information.  See <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1505/> for a
specific example.

The page header contains "<Document Title>".