- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:50:05 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- 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>
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
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:50:50 UTC