Re: ISSUE-27, was: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On Aug 17, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 17.08.2010 09:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:19:01 +0200, Julian Reschke
>> <> wrote:
>>> When we discussed the Link header spec and ISSUE-27 we (the WG) agreed
>>> that "Specification Required" is the right thing to have (the proposed
>>> resolution of ISSUE-27 is marked has having WG consensus).
>> I see no such thing in ?
> Sam reported "rough consensus" in March:
> <>
> Not sure what happened since then, except that we had an endless discussion about who's going to test the registry. I don't think there was any discussion about the "specification requirement" aspect, thus my assumption that we agreed on it.

Here's my understanding of the issue:

We had a proposal, and no outright objections. However, at least one person (Ian) suggested that we should wait until the IANA registry is up and running, and then attempt at least one registration as a test, before deciding on the proposal. No one objected to that course of action at the time (though perhaps things would have been different if we'd known how long it would take to get the registry set up and the test completed.)

In any case, the registry is now up and the test has been done. It doesn't seem like we will gain much more data from further investigation. So it seems to me the right thing to do is check whether anyone wants to propose a different solution than the IANA registry (or some variant of the IANA registry approach), given the information we now have available.

Note: this is from memory; I have not consulted notes, minutes, or my fellow co-chairs. So take this only as an informal statement.


Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 08:31:39 UTC