Update on Issue-27, was: ACTION-182 and Issue-27

Hi,

here's an update on where we are with testing the IANA registry, as seen 
by one of the IETF-appointed Designated Experts:

1) There have been two registration attempts for link relations:

1a) "alternate" 
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00025.html>) 
-- this currently is stuck because we haven't agreed on what the URI for 
the referenced document should be; Ian proposed 
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#rel-alternate>, while I 
think the registration should point to something more permanent, like an 
actual Working Draft. Advice from the HTML WG appreciated.

1b) "pingback" 
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00035.html>) 
-- this currently is stuck in that the referenced document 
(<http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback>) may not satisfy the 
requirements in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#section-6.2.1>; 
see follow up mails for a discussion about how to proceed.

2) There has been one registration attempt for two new pieces of 
application data in the registry 
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00000.html>). 
For these we had several questions about the actual fields, their 
defaults, and what spec to reference 
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00030.html>). 
For the technical questions, I'll start separate threads over here, 
because we'd like to see whether there's a WG consensus behind these 
registrations.

Best regards, Julian