On 2009-12-21 11:21, Anthony Bryan wrote:
> Brian, thank you for the review & happy holidays. :)
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
>> for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>> 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.
>>
>> Document: draft-bryan-metalink-24.txt
>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>> Review Date: 2009-12-21
>> IETF LC End Date: 2010-01-08
>> IESG Telechat date:
>>
>> Summary: Technically ready, but one copyright issue
>> --------
>>
>> Major issues:
>> -------------
>>
>> Note that the inclusion of the pre-5378 disclosure makes it unclear
>> whether the RelaxNG code can be licensed by the Trust in the normal way
>> (simplified BSD) under the current rules. It would be worth checking on this,
>> and maybe including some clarification beyond the standard boilerplate. If
>> the RelaxNG code is in fact submitted under RFC5378 conditions, i.e. is
>> not derived from older work, stating that fact would probably be enough.
>> If the code is in fact subject to RFC3978 conditions, stating that fact would
>> be helpful.
>
> The latest revision (-25, unsubmitted) contains changes due to
> comments during last call:
> http://metalinks.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/metalinks/internetdraft/
>
> We use "trust200902" in it. Does that resolve this issue?
That will work for me!
>
>> Minor issues:
>> -------------
>>
>> This is a bit picky, but section 4.1.2 contains a series of rules like
>> this one:
>>
>> o metalink:file elements MAY contain exactly one metalink:copyright
>> element.
>>
>> Note that (if parsed rigorously according to RFC2119) this does not forbid an
>> element that contains more than one metalink:copyright element. To be
>> rigorous,
>> you'd have to add "and MUST NOT contain more than one such element". I'm not
>> sure
>> if you want to go there...
>
> Let's be rigorous. I'll make those changes.
>
> Why wouldn't we want to go there?
Oh, only because it would make the text a bit noisy. But it should prevent
misunderstandings down the road.
>
>> Comment:
>> --------
>>
>> I have not checked any of the RelaxNG code from a technical viewpoint.
>
> Julian Reschke recently checked it, and those changes are in the
> latest revision.
Excellent.
Thanks, and happy holidays.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
