Skip to main content

Atom License Extension
draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-11

Discuss


Yes

(Jari Arkko)
(Lisa Dusseault)

No Objection

(Bill Fenner)
(Brian Carpenter)
(Chris Newman)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2007-01-10) Unknown
RFC 4287 says:

   Atom allows the use of IRIs [RFC3987].  Every URI [RFC3986] is also
   an IRI, so a URI may be used wherever below an IRI is named.  There
   are two special considerations: (1) when an IRI that is not also a
   URI is given for dereferencing, it MUST be mapped to a URI using the
   steps in Section 3.1 of [RFC3987] and (2) when an IRI is serving as
   an atom:id value, it MUST NOT be so mapped, so that the comparison
   works as described in Section 4.2.6.1.

This document says:

   The IRI specified by
   the link's 'href' attribute SHOULD be dereferenceable to return a
   representation of the license.  The license representation MAY be
   machine readable.

That is, this document is specificying derferencable resources which
MUST be mapped to URIs, according RFC 4287.  I believe that this
document would be clearer and implementations more likely to
interoperate if this document stated that the URI form of the IRI
is required.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-01-09) Unknown
I have some grief with the how they use the term "machine readable". To me that would imply that there was one or more formats of something were my application could figure out it was allows to say copy this or repost it. The example given does not seem machine readable to me and the document does not reference any machine readable formats or provide a negotiation form for them. 

I think the document is lacking an application to be able to interpret the license and if the application can not interpret the license, I see little value (other than saved bandwidth) of this over the <rights> tag. 

I don't see the document causing lots of harm - it just looks useless.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-01-11) Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown