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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]