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