Last Call Review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-
review-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-genart-lc-thomson-2011-12-16-00
Request | Review of | draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2011-12-30 | |
Requested | 2011-12-12 | |
Authors | Mykyta Yevstifeyev | |
I-D last updated | 2011-12-16 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -??
by Martin Thomson
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Martin Thomson |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Martin Thomson |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Completed | 2011-12-16 |
review-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-genart-lc-thomson-2011-12-16-00
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. 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 motivation. 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. Nits: Including explanatory statements like the following: (The <ul> element is used to introduce an unordered, bulleted list in HTML.) ...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>".