Re: "up" relation, was: Fwd: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:52:40PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Which registry procedure?
>> ...
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06#section-6.2>.

Am I correct in understanding:

  * This is the only document that talks about replacing the existing registry.

  * The existing IANA registry will be replaced in situ.

If, so then:

  * Why does the specification link to:

      http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/

    This page doesn't exist.

    The changelog suggest that this should have been removed:

      o  Removed specific location for the registry, since IANA seems to
         have its own ideas about that.

    Instead of removing the location, should IANA sort out the existing mess?

  * Why does the specification omit details available in the current registry.

    The up relation in the specification is currently missing:

      - Expected Display Characteristics

      - Security Considerations

      - Reference

      - Registration Date

    This effects almost every other relation in the specification.

  * Why does the specification add the specification requirement? The previous
    relations added without specification seem quite useful. Do we really want
    to prevent relations like that being added?

Thanks,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater