Mykyta, your continued involvement would be helpful. Martin, here is my perspective...
On 12/17/11 7:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > My concerns over motivation could be addressed by changing the > introduction to remove the dependency on [W3C-PUBRULES] and providing > a generic motivation. That was done in version -01: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-01.txt > More inline. > > On 17 December 2011 17:20, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email protected]> wrote: >> The Intended status is Informational. > > That much is clear from the first page of the draft. I can't see any > reason for why Informational was chosen over Proposed Standard. Can > you share one? Mykyta might have been following the example of several other in-process registration requests: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations/ >>> 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. >> >> Publishing an RFC is an ideal way to accomplish RFC 5226 requirements >> for Specification Required, I think; additionally, whereas it is easy >> to initiate this work in IETF, it is not so easy to do this in W3C. > > "It is easy" is not an especially good reason. Martin, is there *harm* in completing these registrations via informational RFCs? Note that we typically do the same with URN Namespace registrations, see these recent examples: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6288/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6289/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6338/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6453/ >>> 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. >> >> I provide the description of W3C use to demonstrate the current use of >> relation type, and this description in no way means that other >> organizations cannot use it. > > My point is that the document should not focus on one single use case > in one document. It should establish the usefulness of the relation > type for a class of use cases and use the specific instance as an > example only. The way the document is written it barely even hints at > other uses. Martin, I think this issue was addressed in version -01. BTW the latest version is -02: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation/ >>> Nits: >>> Including explanatory statements is unnecessary and distracting. >> >> I see no harm in them. > > Extra words that don't contribute to understanding the message are > harmful. I don't think these help. Martin, please check version -02 to see if your concern has been addressed. The explanatory text is much less prolix than it was previously. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
