W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: link relationship registration [was: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:50:05 +0100
Message-ID: <493F90CD.4080802@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> How about:
> 
>         <t>New relation types MUST correspond to a formal publication by a
>            recognized standards body. In the case of registration for 
> the IETF
>            itself, the registration proposal MUST be published as an 
> Standards-track RFC.</t>
> 
> Note that unlike media types, this does NOT require IESG approval for 
> relation types from outside the IETF; rather, just a 'formal 
> publication', which AIUI corresponds to the REC track in the W3C (but 
> not Notes), OASIS standard, etc.
> 
> Feedback appreciated.
> ...

Looking at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1>, this looks 
like a mix between "Specification Required" and "RFC Required". The 
difference to "Specification Required" being that only standards-track 
RFCs are allowed, and that for non-IETF documents we required "formal 
publication by a recognized standards body".

Is our case sufficiently different from "Specification Required" to 
justify defining a new rule? (I'm not sure, but I think we should make 
sure we considered it...)

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:50:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:58 GMT