Skip to main content

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>".