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

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 <>, 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

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:55:55 UTC