- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:50:53 +1100
- To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- Cc: "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>
On 10/12/2008, at 9:46 PM, Phil Archer wrote: > > > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 10/12/2008, at 8:55 PM, Phil Archer 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. >>> >>> I see what you're trying to do here, and, as someone with a rel >>> type registration request pending with IANA, I can only >>> sympathise. However, I see two problems: >>> >>> 1. Your proposed text entails the definition of a 'recognised >>> standards body' - that alone could cause controversy. Any list of >>> such bodies written today could well be out of date by this time >>> next year. >> AIUI it's up to the IESG at time time of request; there doesn't >> need to be a list as such. >> That said, it's starting to seem like the Specification Required >> approach mentioned by Julian might be a better fit. > > Yes, I agree that the RFC 5226 'Specification Required' idea fits > here. I just have a slight niggle, I forget the name now but there > was a new body set up a few months back that had the appearance of > trying to do at least some of the W3C work but without the overhead > that the Consortium is perceived to require, and there's the case of > the WAP forum that became OMA - would that have always been a > recognised body or did that become such after it became OMA and so > on. It's a bit grey that's all. It is a bit grey, perhaps necessarily. However, worst case, if *any* group of people wants to get something registered, they could do this with an Informational RFC, which is a well-understood and relatively brief process. >>> 2. I understand that the Web works by keeping things distributed >>> rather than centralised, but in this case, there would still be a >>> need for some sort of central 'list of registered relationship >>> types' to avoid two working groups in different standards bodies >>> coming up with new definitions for existing rel types. Now, to go >>> back to an older idea, /that/ could be a wiki - a simple table >>> giving the rel type, the description and the relevant formal >>> publication. But for this to work, the wiki would probably need to >>> be cited in the I-D/RFC and we're back to who is going to host that? > > You misunderstand me. I'm the last person to propose a wiki as the > authoritative central registry (for all the reasons you give). And I > think I misunderstood you too. You're saying that rel types would be > added to the IANA registry /automatically/ iff they met the > Specification Required rule? Then I agree completely. Yes. > What I was concerned about was that the different documents with > change control under different organisations would *be* the > registry, in which case one would need a handy guide to where those > documents were - and a wiki could do that. But the IANA registry is > the best way and if that's to happen then I'll shut up. > > > >> That would entail all sorts of process problems from the IETF, >> which already has a well-recognised body to handle this, IANA. It's >> a real challenge to get a URI into an IETF spec, much less a Wiki >> page. How will you prevent people from changing or deleting >> existing entries? Who will monitor it for abuse? >> Beyond that, a wiki is in effect a first-come, first-served >> mechanism to avoid conflicts, and allowing URIs already serves that >> function; i.e., they already assure that two WGs won't define the >> same relation. The point of a central registry is to converge upon >> well-understood, well-defined and agreed upon link types that are >> of common value and can be reused. >> The free-for-all that a wiki entails will result in (insert evil >> company here) grabbing a "common" name first and defining it in >> their interest, without consultation with the rest of the >> community; interoperability problems as people don't document their >> relation types well, or think about how they'll be used; and so on. >> Having a registry with some bar for entry is designed to encourage >> good design, interoperability, and grow the commons; it's not just >> there to avoid conflicts and be a pain in the posterior to >> impatient developers. >> Despite how it seems sometimes. >>> >>> >>> Phil. >>> >>>> 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 ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=4288#page-4 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >>>>> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> -- >>> Phil Archer >>> w. http://philarcher.org/ >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Phil Archer > w. http://philarcher.org/ -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 10:51:35 UTC