Subject: [apps-discuss] request to register 'describes' link relation (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-describes-link-01)

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:20:14 -1000

dear link-relations experts,

this is a request to register 'describes' in the IANA link relations 
registry established by RFC 5988. the latest draft of the registration 
document is available at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-describes-link-01, and the last 
version announced on a variety of mailing lists has not generated any 
feedback asking for changes.

should the registration request be accepted, my understanding is that 
the draft registration document will be forwarded to IANA for 
registration by a designated expert.

thanks a lot and kind regards,

erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked]  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:40:05 -0400

[I'm removing the non-IETF groups from the distribution list.]

> feedback asking for changes.

I'll let the folks on the link-relations list respond to the
suitability of the specification for documenting a useful link
relation.  I have just a couple of process points:

1. In order for the registration to be done, this document will have
to be published somewhere that will satisfy the Designated Expert as
being a stable reference.  That probably means that you'll want this
to be an RFC, so you need to be sorting out how that will happen.
Happily, I'm willing to sponsor this as an AD-sponsored individual
submission, if the link-relations folks agree that we should register
this.

2. I don't think this should be Standards Track, though (and it
doesn't need to be in order to register the link relation and to be
the reference documentation for it).  I would prefer that you make it
Informational, change the "SHOULD" to "should" in the Security
Considerations, and remove Section 2 and the normative reference to
RFC 2119.  (This can wait until after the feedback from the
link-relations mailing list.)

Barry, Applications AD

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:09:41 -0700

Sticking my hand up and hoping to get some similar treatment for:

  http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-additional-link-relations-05.txt

This one has been there for a while. I followed the same advice you just
gave dret and changed it to informational and cleaned up the normative
references. Pretty basic draft.

- James

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:19:10 -0400

> references. Pretty basic draft.

Indeed.  I suggest that you change the references in each template to
include the section number -- not that the document is long enough to
really matter, but I very much like the cleanliness of it.  For
example:

   o  Relation Name: about
   o  Description: Refers to a resource that is the subject of the
      link's context.
   o  Reference: This specification, Section 2.

Link-relations folk, consider this a formal request for review of the
five relations in the above draft.  After comments here, I'll send the
document out for IETF last call.

Barry

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:19:43 -1000

hello barry.

> [I'm removing the non-IETF groups from the distribution list.]

i tried sending this to barry only, but [email-masked] does not 
seem to be a valid email address, so i'll respond to the list and hope 
barry will get in trough the list somehow.

> relation.  I have just a couple of process points:

thanks for the feedback. i guess i am still a bit confused about the 
process. my understanding was that the link-relations experts would 
provide feedback, and then it would be sponsored as an RFC. apparently, 
that's not how things are working. also, please be advised that another 
similar request was sent to the link-relations and apps-discuss experts 
very recently 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg07356.html), 
and i guess your comments apply to this other request as well.

> submission, if the link-relations folks agree that we should register

thanks. would you be willing to sponsor the other draft 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-profile-link-03) as well?

> link-relations mailing list.)

i assume these changes would apply to the other draft as well. for now i 
will wait for the feedback from the link-relations experts, and if they 
seem to be in favor, i will prepare new versions for both drafts, 
changing the track, and making the other changes you have mentioned.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

--

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:25:56 -0700

Ok... given that I just rev'd the draft and that's a pretty editorial
change, let's hold off on that one until the final edit. I'd say this one
is pretty much done and ready for a last call. Assuming everything goes
through with that, I can make that section number change in the
templates...

- James

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:35:24 -0400

> seem to be a valid email address, so i'll respond to the list and hope barry
> will get in trough the list somehow.

Grumble...
IEEE (computer.org is a forwarding service of the IEEE Computer
Society) has recently started using Postini for filtering, and that's
caused sporadic problems, wherein the Postini filtering servers appear
sometimes to fail to contact the IEEE address validation servers...
and Postini takes the failure to be able to validate the address as
meaning that the address is invalid, and bounces the message.  It only
happens sometimes, and they're not answering my messages asking when
it will be fixed (well, or maybe they are, and...).

In any case, I got this message both through the list and directly.

> process. my understanding was that the link-relations experts would provide
> feedback, and then it would be sponsored as an RFC. apparently, that's not
> how things are working.

I'm not entirely sure.  Theoretically, at least, they will approve
requests for which they are satisfied that the documentation will be
published as a stable, public specification.  Internet Drafts won't
necessarily be that.  Those that come through a working group are
pretty safe, but individual submissions might or might not go
anywhere.

In practice, I don't know whether Mark and Julian are looking for an
AD sponsor before approving, or simply making their approval
contingent on the publication of the document (I'll have to ask them).
 Anyway, if you have an AD sponsor first (which you now do), we have
that covered.

> also, please be advised that another similar request
> was sent to the link-relations and apps-discuss experts very recently
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg07356.html)
...
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-profile-link-03)

Yes, I'm happy to sponsor that one as well, and, yes, please also make
that Informational after we get feedback from the link-relations list
and the DEs.

I'll change the state of both document to Publication Requested, and
we can start the process.

Barry

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:11:38 -1000

hello nathan.

On 2012-10-09 13:21 , Nathan wrote:
> Looks good and most useful, is it worth mentioning anywhere that this
> inverse relations(describes being the inverse of describedby) is now
> needed due to @rev falling out of fashion? It may help explain why
> describes wasn't defined by powder in the first instance.

honestly, i think such a comment would probably confuse more people than 
it would help. @rev never was a popular idea to begin with and only part 
of relatively few vocabularies.

cheers,

dret.

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:02:14 -1000

hello barry.

>   Anyway, if you have an AD sponsor first (which you now do), we have

great, thanks again and for now, that means we have to wait for the 
link-relations experts to respond and hear what their feedback is.

> we can start the process.

just to make sure everything goes as it should: for now, i'll adjust my 
local copies of the next versions of both drafts. as soon as we hear 
from the link-relations experts, i can publish new versions 
incorporating the changes making the drafts informational, and any 
changes requested by the experts.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

---

From: "Rushforth, Peter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:53:02 +0000

6.  "type"

   The "type" Link relation can be used to indicate that the context
   resource is an instance of the resource identified by the target IRI.

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Content-Type: text/plain
     Link: <http://example.org/Person/givenName>; type="type"

     Sally

Surely you mean "rel="type" .

Peter Rushforth

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M Snell
Sent: October 9, 2012 20:10
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] request to register 'describes' link relation (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-describes-link-01)

This one has been there for a while. I followed the same advice you just gave dret and changed it to informational and cleaned up the normative references. Pretty basic draft.

- James

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
[I'm removing the non-IETF groups from the distribution list.]

Barry, Applications AD
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:37:52 -0400

> Since we are at this, I would also like to point out the request to
> register Memento link relation types, which I submitted August 29
> 2012:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00372.html
>
> It was my understanding, from a brief email exchange with Mark
> Nottingham, that it was possible to reserve a spot in the registry for
> rel types for which there was not yet an RFC but for which a spec was
> in the works. In the case of Memento, that is the I-D
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-memento/. I think
> this ability is rather essential: Memento rel types are already in use
> in many applications and it would be rather counter-productive if
> someone else could register them for some other purpose prior to the
> Memento I-D reaching RFC status.

I think you needn't worry here.  Your document is submitted to the
Independent Stream and is under review by the ISE.  The designated
experts are aware of your registration request, and won't be approving
someone else's registration of the same name.  The actual registration
will be made by IANA when the ISE publishes the document.

I'm currently discussing with the designated experts what the tracking
process is for these.  Perhaps we might make it more visible, so
people can know the status of their requests.

Barry

---

From: Nathan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:21:59 +0100

Best and KUTGW,

Nathan

---

From: Herbert van de Sompel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:19:31 -0600

hi all,

Cheers

Herbert

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM, James M Snell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations
>

-- 
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/

==