Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00.txt> (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:13:06 +0100

On 2011-12-09 18:58, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type'
>    <draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00.txt>  as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-01-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> ...

I think it would have been wise if the author actually had sent a review 
request to the link relation mailing list, first (see 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1>).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:19:04 +0200

11.12.2011 16:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I think it would have been wise if the author actually had sent a 
> review request to the link relation mailing list, first (see 

Julian, I have:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00296.html

... and additionally even to apps-discuss:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03420.html

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:31:32 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03420.html

I haven't recognized that as a registration request, it would have been 
helpful to mark it as such in the subject line (again, see 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1>).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:56:51 +0200

11.12.2011 16:31, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I haven't recognized that as a registration request, it would have 
> been helpful to mark it as such in the subject line (again, see 

By sending a message to link-relations list, I though it had been 
implied that I had sent a registration request independently of the 
title.  Anyway, you, as an expert reviewer, may review the document 
during Last Call, and I don't think it should be a problem.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:01:12 -0500

--On Sunday, December 11, 2011 15:13 +0100 Julian Reschke
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think it would have been wise if the author actually had
> sent a review request to the link relation mailing list, first
> (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1>).

Julian,

Rather than seeing more of these procedural messages go back and
forth, let me agree with you about "wise" but note that there is
nothing in the procedures that prevents Mykyta from asking for
an IETF Last Call on the document first if he wants to.  I would
suggest -- with some confidence even without  actual certainty--
that, if the Link-Review list, or even the Designated Expert,
sent in a Last Call comment suggesting (and explaining why) that
this proposal was wonderful, or that it was deeply flawed, the
IESG would pay lots of attention to that.   A review that would
justify one of those conclusions --or asking the IESG to send
the document back for revision and suggesting that the IETF list
see no more Last Calls until there had been adequate discussion
on the relevant mailing list -- would seem to me to be a more
useful use of energy than questioning the procedural path.

My one procedural comment to the IESG would be that approving
this before there is a proper agreement to put the necessary
bits in the registry would be inappropriate and, to use Julian's
term, unwise.

    john

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:05:44 +0100

Hi there,

feedback below:

1. Introduction

    RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined a way of indicating relationships between
    resources on the Web.  This document specifies a new type of such
    relationship - 'disclosure' Link Relation Type.  It designates a list
    of patent disclosures or a particular patent disclosure itself made
    with respect to material for which such relation is specified.

s/-/- the/?

    Active use of 'disclosure' relation type has been identified.  The
    current version of W3C Publication Rules [W3C-PUBRULES], Bullet 36 of
    Section 5, defines that each W3C document must have the boilerplate
    referring to the page where one may find patent disclosures made with
    regard to such document.  As W3C Publication Rules are applied to
    many documents, that might be under different patent policies, a
    number of variants of the mentioned boilerplate exist.  However, the
    phrase "W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in
    connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also
    includes instructions for disclosing a patent." can be found in each
    of these variants.  Publication Rules specify that, in the source
    code, it must look like:

      W3C maintains a <a rel="disclosure" href="...">public list of any
      patent disclosures</a> made in connection with the deliverables of
      the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a
      patent.

Maybe it's worth pointing out that this does not apply as verbatim 
instruction, but as HTML example. It would be good to confirm with the 
W3C that this actually is a requirement and not only a suggestion 
(cc'ing the author of PUBRULES).

    Such provisions existed in previous versions of Publication Rules as
    well, so such source text is often found in different W3C documents
    that predated publication of RFC 5988 significantly.  However,
    'disclosure' relation type has not been mentioned in RFC 5988 when
    creating the registry for relation types; nor was it registered
    separately.

I think the paragraph above is misleading. It was not the point of RFC 
5988 to define all current link relations (it *did* add existing HTML4 
relations and Atom relations to the new registry but that's a separate 
thing).

2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type

    Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
    either

    (1) designate a list of patent disclosures, or

    (2) refer to a particular patent disclosure made with respect to the
        material being referenced by context IRI.

I think in both cases the patent disclosure(s) apply to the context, no?

    This section provides several examples of possible use of
    'disclosure' relation type.

    If the page <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/> contains a list of
    patent disclosures made with respect to the specification found at
    <http://example.org/specs/meta-spec/spec.html>, the latter would have
    the following fragment of HTML source code:

    <html>
      ...
      Please visit
      <a rel="disclosure" href="http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/"> the
      IPR page</a> for the list of patent disclosures made with respect
      to this specification.
      ...
    </html>

    Or, in the case of Link header field, the HTTP response would contain
    the following header field:

      Link: <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/>; rel="disclosure";
      title="Patent Disclosures List"

    (Please note that the actual header field will not contain the line
    break after 'rel' parameter.)

It could if the second line was indented; maybe adjust the example?

Appendix A. Acknowledgments

    Thanks to Bjoern Hoehrmann for noticing that 'disclosure' relation is
    not properly specified and, correspondingly, initiating this work.
    The author would also like to acknowledge the contributions of <TBD>
    to this document.

Who's this TBD guy? :-)

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:14:25 +0100

> feedback below:

Forgot one more thing. The registry already contains the "copyright" 
link relation; maybe it would be good to explain who these are different.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:07:48 +0200

> Hi there,

Hi Julian,

>    with respect to material for which such relation is specified.

Will fix.

> instruction, but as HTML example.

I have that - "in source code".  Maybe I should add "in HTML source code"?

> It would be good to confirm with the W3C that this actually is a 
> requirement and not only a suggestion (cc'ing the author of PUBRULES).

And I have this as well, as I've introduced this extract with "must look 
like".

> relations and Atom relations to the new registry but that's a separate 

This may be read as if RFC 5988 is to determine all the rel types that 
were used at the time of its writing, but I don't think the paragraph 
directly implies this.  I mean that it hasn't been registered either 
centralized (in RFC 5988) or separately here.

Yes.  I may change to:

>    (2) refer to a particular patent disclosure
>
>    made with respect to the material being referenced by context IRI.

to improve readability.

>      title="Patent Disclosures List"

both lines are indented with 5 Courier white spaces, and so I think my 
explanation in parentheses is correct.

>    The author would also like to acknowledge the contributions of <TBD>

You probably :-).

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:09:53 +0200

> link relation; maybe it would be good to explain who these are different.

This is certainly what I should do.

Thanks for feedback!

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:50:34 +0100

> I have that - "in source code". Maybe I should add "in HTML source code"?

The latter sounds good.

> And I have this as well, as I've introduced this extract with "must look

I'd like to see this confirmed by the W3C.

> centralized (in RFC 5988) or separately here.

Well, it doesn't say anything interesting, and might confuse people to 
think this was an oversight in 5988. Just drop it.

>> made with respect to the material being referenced by context IRI.

OK.

> explanation in parentheses is correct.

Well, HTTP header fields start at column 0 in a message.

Of course you can indent your examples, but my point was that if you 
indent the second line *more*, it would be valid. Like this:

Best regards, Julian

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:39:12 -0800

At 11:07 13-12-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>This may be read as if RFC 5988 is to determine all the rel types 
>that were used at the time of its writing, but I don't think the 
>paragraph directly implies this.  I mean that it hasn't been 
>registered either centralized (in RFC 5988) or separately here.

In the Introduction Section, the following sentence could be dropped:

   "However, 'disclosure' relation type has not been mentioned in RFC 5988
    when creating the registry for relation types; nor was it registered
    separately."

The last paragraph of that section explains what the document is about.

I suggest an editorial change in Section 2:

   "Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI
    [RFC5998] MUST either"

Quoting the example in Section 3:

   "The following are the patent disclosures known at present made
      with respect to this specification:
      <ul><a rel="disclosure" href="http://patent.gov/8546987">
      U.S. Patent No. 8546987</a></ul>
      <ul><a rel="disclosure" href="http://ipr.su/pat/98745-6">
      U.S.S.R. Patent No. 98745-6</a></ul>
      <ul><a rel="disclosure" href="ftp://ftp.legal.va/a/patent3.pdf">
      Vatical City State Patent No. 3</a></ul>"

If the IETF takes the security of the Vatican City seriously (there's 
a typo in the example), I suggest adding a ".example" at the end of 
the domain names.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 07:38:29 +0200

On 13 December 2011 21:50 Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Well, it doesn't say anything interesting, and might confuse people to think
> this was an oversight in 5988. Just drop it.

OK, I will.

> Of course you can indent your examples, but my point was that if you indent
> the second line *more*, it would be valid. Like this:
>

This is OK as well.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 07:42:17 +0200

> The last paragraph of that section explains what the document is about.

I've already done this, per Julian's comments.

>  "Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI

Added.

> If the IETF takes the security of the Vatican City seriously (there's a typo
> in the example), I suggest adding a ".example" at the end of the domain
> names.

I'm fine with this.  So I've changed this to:

     The following are the patent disclosures known at present made
     with respect to this specification:
     <ul><a rel="disclosure" href="http://patent.gov.example/8546987">
     U.S. Patent No. 8546987</a></ul>
     <ul><a rel="disclosure" href="http://ipr.su.example/pat/98745-6">
     U.S.S.R. Patent No. 98745-6</a></ul>
     <ul><a rel="disclosure" href="http://pat.va.example/a/patent3.pdf">
     Vatical City State Patent No. 3</a></ul>

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:52:03 +0200

Hello,

I'd like to seek consensus on separating the semantics of link
relation for separate disclosure and a list thereof, correspondingly
defining two link relations - 'disclosure' and 'disclosure-list'.  You
may see my edits made to Section 2 of the doc. below, which I'm
proposing:

   Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI
   [RFC5988] MUST refer to a particular patent disclosure made with
   respect to the material being referenced by context IRI.

3. 'disclosure-list' Link Relation Type

   Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
   designate a list of patent disclosures made with respect to the
   material being referenced by context IRI.

As the doc. is in Last Call now, in order not to initiate a new one,
please comment on these changes before January 6, so that I could know
which version I should submit for IESG evaluation.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

2011/12/9 The IESG <[email-masked]>:
> Abstract
>   This document specifies the 'disclosure' Link Relation Type.  It
>   designates a list of patent disclosures or a particular patent
>   disclosure itself made with respect to material for which such
>   relation type is specified.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:36:21 +0100

> which version I should submit for IESG evaluation.

I don't see a compelling reason to distinguish both.

Best regards, Julian