Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:14:02 -0700

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-masked]> 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/

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:52:19 +1100

Hi Peter,

-02 is a marked improvement over the version I reviewed.  All my concerns
were addressed.

--Martin

On Jan 18, 2012 8:14 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On 12/17/11 ?:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

I don't find that reason any more compelling. How about: "this is the one
we chose and there isn't a good reason to choose either, so this will do"?
Which is probably what you meant anyhow...

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:54:26 -0700

On 1/23/12 4:52 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> -02 is a marked improvement over the version I reviewed.  All my
> concerns were addressed.
> 
> --Martin
> 
> On Jan 18, 2012 8:14 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
> I don't find that reason any more compelling. How about: "this is the
> one we chose and there isn't a good reason to choose either, so this
> will do"? Which is probably what you meant anyhow...

How about: "everyone else was doing it that way so the author didn't see
a good reason to buck the trend"?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:57:39 -0700

> a good reason to buck the trend"?

In any case, I see no reason to hold up publication of this I-D given
(1) that we have two other I-Ds taking the same path and (2) you said:

"-02 is a marked improvement over the version I reviewed.  All my
concerns were addressed."

I'm going to ask Russ to clear his DISCUSS.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/