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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf