Re: [apps-discuss] IANA hanges to draft-nottingham-http-link-header
SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 29 September 2010 05:38 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15323A6E29 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, 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 ae0Fccz9YsIU for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2C13A6E16 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id o8T5d2Za026036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1285738755; x=1285825155; bh=3q4BIrqREyvZklu8VfwY9lR8uZWRDKjx+QR/f8JRunE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=KKImPUrkabYmGJlLcb4E0Lc+dUB3sGFHH5qGSyBp2DTCffxRMePb8XGWD69HTShlW M7BvuMhgDJkLHhHQ/arY1OrN7L76T8t2HITh6PmKzooLFolQ5HXXX9O3KUVMayLXyi 5Fqt0gs5ZsiNglWS7YwR/hkDMAbvebPQ5MmOWkK0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1285738755; x=1285825155; bh=3q4BIrqREyvZklu8VfwY9lR8uZWRDKjx+QR/f8JRunE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=QwO4py254T7Yoaw3uAdR/e96lXDqM9FaeO+R5LpacB41aoYLfpN+BcIF0mhUG2CRM LKsChWW6PelWV6HSBd9Dv3uq6J1bNHZemWmjWNPARDm/Yvhq+90WP8qnRsoJv54Aze 6Lt7dX75/ETZKwydF/dLYRANfRO5XYtpK5CiIm6s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=MP96BOT7sLTzURVDQZjKTe3ABEMfLv82PyWSDSO61Q1Kjwuk0YEUMQVCZOb1qrRQt oOoQrHVanVY0e1pIxb43Sao2J3afWKTodmjG6TzByDaYLKCvjxDjJGRi/BMN6vDk2iS dZHYXCu8JPVw4Q5Dv9vk0Gu46Ua6cU15hOA/GXs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100928222414.0abb3710@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:36:46 -0700
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <D92B699E-32AA-4CD8-94B8-469296A4D48B@mnot.net>
References: <D92B699E-32AA-4CD8-94B8-469296A4D48B@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IANA hanges to draft-nottingham-http-link-header
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:38:36 -0000
Hi Mark, At 21:25 22-09-10, Mark Nottingham wrote: >3) Adding the following to the beginning of section 6.2, "Link >Relation Type Registry": > > The underlying registry data (e.g., the XML file) must include > Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust > Legal Provisions (<http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info>). Why are you specifying a license for the registry? Section 6.2.1 sets a hard limit for approving or denying registration. There draft defines an appeal process. That is usual. Can't you leave these procedures to RFC 5226? Regards, -sm