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

[ trimming down the CC: list; does no MUA respect Reply-To any more? ]

Thanks for reminding me. Language like that below is what I had in  
mind, and will put into the next draft, if that's what we want to do.

On 02/12/2008, at 7:10 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:11 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration
>> requirements, as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking point.
>> Note that it was previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to "IETF
>> Review" (nee "IETF Consensus") so that a document is required.  
>> Also, I
>> believe this still accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C)
>> using their processes to publish documents that register entries,  
>> just
>> as with media types.
> That would surprise me; while there is a significant overlap in the
> communities, the IETF does not, in general, accept consensus
> in the W3C community in place of consensus in its own community.
> The media type registration spec phrases it this way:
> 3.1.  Standards Tree
>   The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the
>   Internet community.  Registrations in the standards tree MUST be
>   approved by the IESG and MUST correspond to a formal publication  
> by a
>   recognized standards body.  In the case of registration for the IETF
>   itself ...
>  --
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 00:15:46 UTC