- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:55:15 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- 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>
Yes. If we went pure "Specification Required", any RFC or NOTE (for example) could be used as the basis of registration, as long as it passed muster with a Designated Expert. Either process would be fine by me; I'm mostly interested in what the Atom and HTML folks think about these options. On 10/12/2008, at 8:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > 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 > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:55:56 UTC