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

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