From julian.reschke@gmx.de Wed Apr 6 08:53:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7383A6874 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id geLGzTZqTpkO for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CFBDE3A6819 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Apr 2011 15:55:32 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.131]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 06 Apr 2011 17:55:32 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19bESF1YwBbUT+6+2tWYM8sccNzx1c+hyVyS0w0JS rqWNbLjy+Qj/7o Message-ID: <4D9C8CE9.4000304@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:55:21 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael(tm) Smith" References: <20100902081434.GE58403@sideshowbarker> <4CCD6965.1000901@gmx.de> <4D6E4C8C.9070404@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4D6E4C8C.9070404@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "archives" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:53:53 -0000 On 02.03.2011 14:56, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 31.10.2010 14:04, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 02.09.2010 10:14, Michael(tm) Smith wrote: >>> Relation Name: >>> archives >>> >>> Description: >>> Provides a link to a collection of records, documents, or other >>> materials of historical interest. >>> >>> Reference: >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-archives >>> >>> Notes: >>> Template to be added to W3C HTML5 specification before >>> publication of next Working Draft >> >> Sounds good to me. > > This definition was just removed from the Editor's draft of HTML5. > Should it get published as a Working Draft, the reference in the IANA > registry will be dangling. > > The simplest possible fix will be to make the link go specifically to > the current Working Draft > (), > which is immutable. In the meantime, a new WD has been published, so the links in the registry are now dangling. Should we (a) remove the registrations, or (b) change the links to go to the previous WD? Mike, any preference? BR, Julian From julian.reschke@gmx.de Thu Apr 7 11:52:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F093A6A1D for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:52:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.865, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3WsW9Ljw92r for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D8E4B3A69EA for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Apr 2011 18:54:10 -0000 Received: from p508FB898.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.184.152] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 07 Apr 2011 20:54:10 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/mSepD2UHmpXASsEwTeCF0o3ROvJm8vsNv4QmANq 5DarvscskOaR7O Message-ID: <4D9E0844.50808@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:53:56 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham References: <69D54950-1FE2-4714-9FED-569142BBF1A4@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Ian Hickson , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:52:30 -0000 On 11.08.2010 05:35, Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... > If you meet the "RFC or Open Standard" test, it's possible to register it. > > Note that publishing on the independent submission Informational RFC track isn't really "through the IETF process" -- it's at the discretion of the RFC Editor, which is a separate entity. See: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742 > > While I can't say that it's necessarily a quick process, the amount of work involved (beyond draft formatting) is relatively low, and there are a few upsides, including: > > 1) RFCs are institutionally guaranteed not to change over time; you say that the spec is frozen, but there aren't checks or balances, nor conventions in place, to prevent future changes. > 2) When you die and your Web site disappears, an RFC will have a better chance of persisting in an unambiguous state. > ... Assuming we are ok with the content, but not with the *location* of the spec, there may be an easy way to fix this. For instance, - use as reference, or - have Ian send the spec as attachment to the www-archive mailing list, and then link to the attachment in the mail archive. Best regards, Julian From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Fri Apr 15 11:09:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6A3E090F for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tIZkfN33Y8JS for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A506E0768 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so1494781pvh.31 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=YG2RhLEzhqDSu6emMIFvLwsm+D//trO/gThqvVtYkMU=; b=IK2Jntkx8FJLUsMySYvKJ/qqub/Au+WatKhgtBze8IFUne/YccdQD6XBBYcWDr80n+ SIF8xO0PaJCS4FQv7mtrdFYEYWYJ/CWTOHrEVT3omH5oLpeYgOtuBSwxy0P8J4JLtRvW TIEdguY6R28RGzo6lOCsJU14Y4yITzJHmucJ0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=On7Lrbgr1Qp//lO/6sP2LizE2BCu/yDXGyyghRuEVQYmRjF5OUEROX9bIAcfDYcxQO SgOz3wouFBnVCB+dP0ZzgWXrHsguEwawa9Ss6J7NU4/J/mJssGqdB3hjZ0TT6w4EMiXS B6RMqZ/Lfkr26M9ccBzIg9DPSYRYlCSqaPPBo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.144.20 with SMTP id r20mr981975wfd.76.1302890981561; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.89.5 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:09:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Frank Ellermann To: link-relations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:27:52 -0700 Subject: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:09:51 -0000 Relation Name: canonical Description: A "canonical" URI is the preferred version of a set of URIs with highly similar content. It is intended to help search engines when the same or highly similar similar content is available at different URIs. Reference: About rel="canonical" http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394 Notes: In and the authors state that Ask, Bing, Google, and Yahoo supported canonical URIs as of February, 2009. From julian.reschke@gmx.de Fri Apr 15 11:30:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BACE0865 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:30:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.493, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVDcfzT64gcF for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E244EE0934 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2011 18:30:04 -0000 Received: from p508F9E5D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.158.93] by mail.gmx.net (mp036) with SMTP; 15 Apr 2011 20:30:04 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/zqVIUe1fzAaP5bI8k3VVAF1vyBRhLjuEARRP0a2 3UNLRPloMPbqn/ Message-ID: <4DA88EA7.3060405@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:29:59 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:30:18 -0000 On 15.04.2011 20:09, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Relation Name: canonical > Description: A "canonical" URI is the preferred version of a set of URIs > with highly similar content. It is intended to help search > engines when the same or highly similar similar content is > available at different URIs. > Reference: About rel="canonical" > http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394 > Notes: In and > the authors > state that Ask, Bing, Google, and Yahoo supported canonical > URIs as of February, 2009. Frank, we do have people at Google looking into writing a "proper" spec -- maybe you are willing to assist them, given your IETF know-how? Best regards, Julian From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Fri Apr 15 15:22:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCE2E06CE for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vrt++oNam7Ec for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E753DE0692 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so1608704pvh.31 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=6BidtDnxwJx1IoUawSLO3hJ+52uYPoJg3/nWcE6TjNU=; b=ebEC4xwKSd0jraYMxe3d3DWaVk+4ww1nzdKih64sU2AjpSHGHy0JAwqsZc+3HJTZks rZoXu4A/UjlXt3fS4p6E1wmCvxb/6zw0nQtLH5PY983Zh/MSBoBAHpNcoP4H7KGXMzoL Z3E1Ry0jl/tkcNe7tgxvU9y7tczLSZjj5t++g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=x8B8LK90VcDzGe75bh585diCVfC1r1tKo9u7RyRo50StkZIazsT3eInWK4sRmdQ+b0 diu/3BsrkTJF9TLIeCFkj+/DVbzJf6h7Qo6Pvkc6HvmUzH/B/S/JUKVPJVLRI0NyUK/7 GFMTdRfR/fUYYFvFGJVbty1Ru9txuGoZkyjp8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.177.6 with SMTP id e6mr1102718wfp.223.1302906145099; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.89.5 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:22:25 +0200 Message-ID: From: Frank Ellermann To: link-relations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [link-relations] rel="canonical" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:22:27 -0000 Hi, I've found the list archive, and Peter told the IETF secretary that this list can be added to http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html Please s/similar similar/similar/ in my registration request. That is in essence a dupe, you already got a similar registration request some weeks ago from Ed Summers. Sorry, I didn't know that, just pick what you like better. I agree with Julian that this is a case for... Note that relation types can be registered by third parties, if the Designated Expert determines that an unregistered relation type is widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner. As specification the original (vintage 2009-02-19) blog entry at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html is not better than the "webmaster help" page (updated 2011-03-20). Apparently I-D.johnston-addressing-link-relations-01 is expired, so that doesn't help at the moment. It also discussed other relations. In February Julian wrote: > a document at google.com should work if the URI looks stable. The "Google webmaster tools" exist for some years, but that is of course no guarantee for their 'About rel="canonical"' help page. You could BE BOLD and copy the content to the microformats wiki, they already host a rel="nofollow" text (apparently waiting for a better specification since 2005). IMO rel="canonical" doesn't really need an RFC - it is a rather dubious name and very near to rel="bookmark" or rel="self", but nevertheless it needs to be registered. - Frank From mnot@mnot.net Wed Apr 20 23:23:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3CAE0690 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:23:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.728 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2jcqyhTJzbcs for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9BEE066C for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.5.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C401509D9; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <4D9E0844.50808@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:23:19 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4B908F60-1368-4C34-82D8-B74F8B0211E5@mnot.net> References: <69D54950-1FE2-4714-9FED-569142BBF1A4@mnot.net> <4D9E0844.50808@gmx.de> To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Ian Hickson , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:23:25 -0000 There's some discussion currently going on about making updating the = registries easier, with simplified procedures for corrections, updates, = etc. If/when that happens, I'm thinking that a reference to Ian's site (or = similar) isn't problematic, as the main problem -- that it may become = unavailable if something happens to Ian -- isn't such an issue.=20 Make sense? Cheers, On 08/04/2011, at 4:53 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 11.08.2010 05:35, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... >> If you meet the "RFC or Open Standard" test, it's possible to = register it. >>=20 >> Note that publishing on the independent submission Informational RFC = track isn't really "through the IETF process" -- it's at the discretion = of the RFC Editor, which is a separate entity. See: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742 >>=20 >> While I can't say that it's necessarily a quick process, the amount = of work involved (beyond draft formatting) is relatively low, and there = are a few upsides, including: >>=20 >> 1) RFCs are institutionally guaranteed not to change over time; you = say that the spec is frozen, but there aren't checks or balances, nor = conventions in place, to prevent future changes. >> 2) When you die and your Web site disappears, an RFC will have a = better chance of persisting in an unambiguous state. >> ... >=20 > Assuming we are ok with the content, but not with the *location* of = the spec, there may be an easy way to fix this. >=20 > For instance, >=20 > - use = as reference, or >=20 > - have Ian send the spec as attachment to the www-archive mailing = list, and then link to the attachment in the mail archive. >=20 > Best regards, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From eran@hueniverse.com Wed Apr 20 23:44:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCA7E06E7 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:44:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VoCavG1tr8mj for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DFD1E069C for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 29577 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2011 06:44:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2011 06:44:32 -0000 Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:44:32 -0700 From: Eran Hammer-Lahav To: Mark Nottingham , Julian Reschke Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:44:25 -0700 Thread-Topic: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback Thread-Index: Acv/7KCWtb2Ew0P9RcyHskMvh+EEHwAAt8tw Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447535BBB67@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> References: <69D54950-1FE2-4714-9FED-569142BBF1A4@mnot.net> <4D9E0844.50808@gmx.de> <4B908F60-1368-4C34-82D8-B74F8B0211E5@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <4B908F60-1368-4C34-82D8-B74F8B0211E5@mnot.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Ian Hickson , "link-relations@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:44:36 -0000 Makes sense to me. As an aside, would an expired I-D work as an alternative copy? EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: link-relations-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:link-relations- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:23 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: Ian Hickson; link-relations@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback >=20 > There's some discussion currently going on about making updating the > registries easier, with simplified procedures for corrections, updates, e= tc. >=20 > If/when that happens, I'm thinking that a reference to Ian's site (or sim= ilar) > isn't problematic, as the main problem -- that it may become unavailable = if > something happens to Ian -- isn't such an issue. >=20 > Make sense? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 >=20 > On 08/04/2011, at 4:53 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >=20 > > On 11.08.2010 05:35, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> ... > >> If you meet the "RFC or Open Standard" test, it's possible to register= it. > >> > >> Note that publishing on the independent submission Informational RFC > track isn't really "through the IETF process" -- it's at the discretion o= f the RFC > Editor, which is a separate entity. See: > >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742 > >> > >> While I can't say that it's necessarily a quick process, the amount of= work > involved (beyond draft formatting) is relatively low, and there are a few > upsides, including: > >> > >> 1) RFCs are institutionally guaranteed not to change over time; you sa= y > that the spec is frozen, but there aren't checks or balances, nor convent= ions > in place, to prevent future changes. > >> 2) When you die and your Web site disappears, an RFC will have a bette= r > chance of persisting in an unambiguous state. > >> ... > > > > Assuming we are ok with the content, but not with the *location* of the > spec, there may be an easy way to fix this. > > > > For instance, > > > > - use > pingback/pingback> as reference, or > > > > - have Ian send the spec as attachment to the www-archive mailing list,= and > then link to the attachment in the mail archive. > > > > Best regards, Julian >=20 > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations From mnot@mnot.net Wed Apr 20 23:57:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05FEE071E for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t4Fk96dfuqwl for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F30E071B for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.44] (unknown [124.148.171.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CA11509EB; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:57:49 -0400 (EDT) References: <69D54950-1FE2-4714-9FED-569142BBF1A4@mnot.net> <4D9E0844.50808@gmx.de> <4B908F60-1368-4C34-82D8-B74F8B0211E5@mnot.net> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447535BBB67@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447535BBB67@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8H7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <90E2E6FF-3405-4262-9AFE-C23B9FDBB563@mnot.net> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8H7) From: Mark Nottingham Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:57:51 +1000 To: Eran Hammer-Lahav Cc: Ian Hickson , "link-relations@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:57:57 -0000 No; I-ds are very specifically temporary docs, and designed to be superceded= . It might make sense to reserve an entry based upon an active I-d, of cours= e.=20 On 21/04/2011, at 4:44 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > Makes sense to me. >=20 > As an aside, would an expired I-D work as an alternative copy? >=20 > EHL >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: link-relations-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:link-relations- >> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:23 PM >> To: Julian Reschke >> Cc: Ian Hickson; link-relations@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback >>=20 >> There's some discussion currently going on about making updating the >> registries easier, with simplified procedures for corrections, updates, e= tc. >>=20 >> If/when that happens, I'm thinking that a reference to Ian's site (or sim= ilar) >> isn't problematic, as the main problem -- that it may become unavailable i= f >> something happens to Ian -- isn't such an issue. >>=20 >> Make sense? >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >>=20 >> On 08/04/2011, at 4:53 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>=20 >>> On 11.08.2010 05:35, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> ... >>>> If you meet the "RFC or Open Standard" test, it's possible to register i= t. >>>>=20 >>>> Note that publishing on the independent submission Informational RFC >> track isn't really "through the IETF process" -- it's at the discretion o= f the RFC >> Editor, which is a separate entity. See: >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742 >>>>=20 >>>> While I can't say that it's necessarily a quick process, the amount of w= ork >> involved (beyond draft formatting) is relatively low, and there are a few= >> upsides, including: >>>>=20 >>>> 1) RFCs are institutionally guaranteed not to change over time; you say= >> that the spec is frozen, but there aren't checks or balances, nor convent= ions >> in place, to prevent future changes. >>>> 2) When you die and your Web site disappears, an RFC will have a better= >> chance of persisting in an unambiguous state. >>>> ... >>>=20 >>> Assuming we are ok with the content, but not with the *location* of the >> spec, there may be an easy way to fix this. >>>=20 >>> For instance, >>>=20 >>> - use >> > pingback/pingback> as reference, or >>>=20 >>> - have Ian send the spec as attachment to the www-archive mailing list, a= nd >> then link to the attachment in the mail archive. >>>=20 >>> Best regards, Julian >>=20 >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations