IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00.txt> (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sun, 01 January 2012 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BA321F8496; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 00:25:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 O8ZRQdgYje6B; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 00:25:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE7521F849B; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 00:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obcuz6 with SMTP id uz6so12774560obc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:25:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V6GnkoT3lm+Bj/4/1/ho3FcPn7085fBqGQkcPKY82rw=; b=iIOhwh21mbk+8a1CBY+KmX0dO4CHAlAHl5WW9EFYbQLIQAfjCqi6mZgaE4bU/hSuaw EJTMH7PP6R4W7DzA2AJkHHGD39mdOGujO578qP5cU2KQ60HlE6AKp4Nrv6LfwMOylPpV +EjRlulX37i6uZJR1s4FshzxlMYLw6L20coNM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.15.104 with SMTP id w8mr38921150obc.20.1325406342975; Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.30.167 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 00:25:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EFC88F5.4070106@gmx.de>
References: <20111209175852.12171.32923.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADBvc9-UbeXMtUDLq=KndzMfs6wQxFL4W4gOJBofHO-o8+1ZoA@mail.gmail.com> <4EFC88F5.4070106@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 10:25:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CADBvc9-qjHWRVpkTxU76gv7zjPRstwFMM4tDWWzgh6ChDjvhMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00.txt> (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 08:25:46 -0000

Julian, all,

When I came to fixing the examples section per received comments, I
first began to refine the example on references to separate
disclosures, and what I got was:

   <html>
     ...
     Please visit
     <a rel="disclosure" href="http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/">
     the IPR page</a> for the list of patent disclosures made with
     respect to this specification.
     ...
   </html>

(unchanged fragment of list) and, later,

    <a rel="disclosure"
     href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1097/">IPR Disclosure
    #1097</a>

(this was fixed to suit real situation with RFC 5925).  And, after a
closer look, I realized that the separate-patent-disclosure semantics
and a list-thereof one are completely different.  That is a simple and
compelling reason, I think, to distinguish the semantics.

And that's why we have 'item' and 'collection' relations (now in LC)
defined as pair (actually, what my document defines may be considered
to be a special case of these in some way).

The only thing is that such proposed definition is different from the
current W3C's use of 'disclosure' relation, which is used as my
proposed 'disclosure-list', but once we have defined both, W3C will
migrate to a new, correct one (I hope).

All the best, and happy New Year,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

2011/12/29 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>:
> On 2011-12-27 07:52, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to seek consensus on separating the semantics of link
>> relation for separate disclosure and a list thereof, correspondingly
>> defining two link relations - 'disclosure' and 'disclosure-list'.  You
>> may see my edits made to Section 2 of the doc. below, which I'm
>> proposing:
>>
>> 2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
>>
>>    Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI
>>    [RFC5988] MUST refer to a particular patent disclosure made with
>>    respect to the material being referenced by context IRI.
>>
>> 3. 'disclosure-list' Link Relation Type
>>
>>    Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
>>    designate a list of patent disclosures made with respect to the
>>    material being referenced by context IRI.
>>
>> As the doc. is in Last Call now, in order not to initiate a new one,
>> please comment on these changes before January 6, so that I could know
>> which version I should submit for IESG evaluation.
>> ...
>
>
> I don't see a compelling reason to distinguish both.
>
> Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email