[Gen-art] Re: Genart LC review of draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

[Robert Sparks]

On Aug 28, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: Issue 1: It's not clear why this is Experimental from the current document text (research, limited applicability,...?). Would an applicability statement make sense? Perhaps.  There are two reasons why I suggested Experimental: 1.  I'm not entirely convinced what the right choices for the scope of a license are.  There are usability and legality concerns. 2.  We (James and I) don't know of intended consumer applications of license information in feeds.  There are a couple tools that are or will soon be capable of putting license info in, but who will go looking for it?   (e.g. search engines that can filter out/in certain kinds of licenses) So if we (IETF) publish this as Experimental and it turns out to be useful, we'll see consumer applications and then we'll get more information on what are the most appropriate choices for the scope of the license metadata.   For other Experimental documents, I've seen general statements added along the lines of "It's not yet certain what use this will be put to, so implementations and feedback are encouraged"... but isn't that almost to be assumed for Experimental docs? To make sure I was clear - I wasn't objecting to Experimental - I just think it would help to give a little insight into the choice. James' comment about many publishers including something like this already without a common agreement on how it might be used would be a good thing to capture so when the implementor sees the "Experimental" red flag, there's something providing focus on what they should think about when trying to use it. Your comment above on getting more information is also worthy of including in the document. RjS

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art