idnits 2.17.1
draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-02.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (January 4, 2012) is 4467 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5988 (Obsoleted by RFC 8288)
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 INTERNET-DRAFT M. Yevstifeyev
3 Intended Status: Informational January 4, 2012
4 Expires: July 7, 2012
6 The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
7 draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-02
9 Abstract
11 This document specifies the 'disclosure' link relation type. It
12 designates a list of IPR disclosures made with respect to the
13 material for which such relation type is specified.
15 Status of this Memo
17 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
22 other groups may also distribute working documents as
23 Internet-Drafts.
25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
31 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
36 Copyright and License Notice
38 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
39 document authors. All rights reserved.
41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
44 publication of this document. Please review these documents
45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
49 described in the Simplified BSD License.
51 Table of Contents
53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
54 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
55 2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
56 2.1. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
57 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
58 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
59 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
60 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
63 1. Introduction
65 RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined a way of indicating relationships between
66 resources on the Web. This document specifies the 'disclosure' link
67 relation type. It designates a list of IPR disclosures made with
68 respect to the material for which such relation type is specified.
69 Please note that the term "patent disclosure" should be considered to
70 be synonymous to "IPR disclosure" for the purposes of 'disclosure'
71 link relation type semantics, as patent disclosures are a subset of
72 IPR disclosures.
74 The W3C already mandates the use of the 'disclosure' link relation
75 type for links to patent disclosures in all its documents. However,
76 it has long been used with no proper specification and registration.
77 This document is to accomplish this gap and encourage wider use of
78 'disclosure' relation type. It formally specifies the existing
79 practice of use of the link relation type and registers it in the
80 registry created by RFC 5988.
82 Please note that 'disclosure' relation type designates a different
83 resource that 'copyright' type does; the latter refers to the
84 copyright statement while the former is used to reference patent
85 disclosure. Please visit RFC 5988 [RFC5988] for more information on
86 'copyright' relation type.
88 1.1. Terminology
90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
92 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
94 2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
96 Whenever the 'disclosure' relation type is used, the resource at the
97 target IRI [RFC5988] MUST represent a list of patent disclosures made
98 with respect to the material referenced by context IRI. This also
99 covers the case of an empty list and a list containing one entry.
101 2.1. Examples
103 This section provides an example of possible use of 'disclosure'
104 relation type.
106 If the page contains a list of
107 patent disclosures made with respect to the specification found at
108 , the latter would have
109 the following fragment of HTML source code:
111
112 ...
113 Please visit
114
115 the IPR page for the list of patent disclosures made with
116 respect to this specification.
117 ...
118
120 Or, in the case of Link header field, the HTTP response would contain
121 the following header field:
123 Link: ; rel="disclosure";
124 title="Patent Disclosures List"
126 (Please note that the actual header field will not contain the line
127 break and spaces after 'rel' parameter.)
129 3. Security Considerations
131 The 'disclosure' relation type is truly believed not to raise any new
132 security issues which are not discussed in RFC 5988 for generic use
133 of Web linking mechanism.
135 4. IANA Considerations
137 IANA is asked to register the 'disclosure' link relation type in the
138 corresponding registry, with reference to this document, using the
139 following template:
141 o Relation name: disclosure
143 o Description: refers to a list of patent disclosures made with
144 respect to material for which 'disclosure' relation is specified
146 o Reference: RFC xxxx
148 5. Normative References
150 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
151 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
153 [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
155 Appendix A. Acknowledgments
157 Thanks to Bjoern Hoehrmann for noticing that 'disclosure' relation is
158 not properly specified and, correspondingly, initiating this work.
159 The author would also like to acknowledge the contributions of (in
160 alphabetical order) Bjoern Hoehrmann, John Klensin, Subramanian
161 Moonesamy, Julian Reschke, Thomas Roessler, Peter Saint-Andre, Martin
162 Thomson, and Juergen Quittek to this document.
164 Authors' Addresses
166 Mykyta Yevstifeyev
167 8 Kuzovkov St., Apt. 25
168 Kotovsk
169 Ukraine
171 EMail: evnikita2@gmail.com