I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-snell-atompub-feed-
license-10.txt
Summary: This individual submission is ready for publication as an
Experimental RFC
I previously reviewed this draft at -07 during IETF Last Call. That
review is copied below for convenience.
The concerns have been sufficiently addressed by the current version
of the draft.
My remaining comments (not intended to suggest changes to the draft
at this point) are that it's still hard to find text to
help correct someone that misinterprets the license assertion to
cover the bits pointed to rather than the bits
in the feed itself. I was initially a little unsettled by the
creation and use of a URI (http://purl.org/atompub/license#unspecified)
in an uncontrolled space to have special meaning, but Lisa assures me
this is normal practice.
RjS
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: August 28, 2006 2:12:32 PM CDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected]
Subject: Genart LC review of draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-snell-atompub-feed-
license-07.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://
www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive.
Summary:
This is an AD-sponsored individual submission for consideration as
an Experimental RFC.
The draft has a few open issues (mostly around clarity) that should
be resolved before publication.
Overall, I found this document confusing. I had to go through it
several times before I felt like I knew what it was trying to
accomplish. With that done, I can't figure out why it's trying to
do what it's doing.
--------
Issue 1:
It's not clear why this is Experimental from the current document
text (research, limited applicability,...?).
Would an applicability statement make sense?
--------
Issue 2:
What's covered by the license claim is still hard to pull out of
the document - the paragraphs added for version 07 help. The
following paragraph starts to capture the intent (I think), but the
document would benefit from making this a more immediate and
central point:
Because entries contained within a feed may originate from other
sources, "license" link relations appearing within a feed apply to
the metadata of the containing feed element only and do not extend
over the metadata or content of the contained entries.
I read this to say that the license covers only those bits inside
the <feed> element that contains the license link, but no bits
inside any <entry> elements that <feed> element might contain.
This is the real requirement and should be stated normatively. The
following paragraphs are justification for the requirement. The
point would be better made if they didn't have the normative text
they currently have. (Unless I've missed the point off the document).
------
Issue 3:
It would help a lot to describe (even if that means speculate) what
a person or automaton will do when consuming this new data. I'm
having a hard time guessing what this would be used for (assuming
I've understood the requirement as stated in issue 2 correctly).
------
Issue 4:
This example is confusing:
Multiple "license" link relations specifying different href
attribute
values are are considered to be mutually exclusive
alternatives. For
instance, if an entry specifies both a Creative Commons License
and
the General Public License (GPL), the entry is considered to be
licensed as either Creative Commons OR GPL as opposed to Creative
Commons AND GPL.
I think you're trying to say that the format will allow your <feed>
meta-data to be dual- or multi-licensed and the example is showing
how it can express that. If I'm correct, saying it that way might
reach a wider audience. Finding a concrete example of something you
might dual-license in such a way would help. I'm having a hard time
coming up with something that would appear with the dual-license
structure you show as an example here.
(btw - if the text above survives, there is a duplicated "are" in
the first sentence)
------
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
