Martin, Thanks for a review. Please see comments in-line.
2011/12/17 Martin Thomson <[email protected]>: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > 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.) > ...is 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 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1505/> 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
