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

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello barry.

On 2012-10-09 13:40 , Barry Leiba wrote:
> [I'm removing the non-IETF groups from the distribution list.]

i tried sending this to barry only, but [e-mail] 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.

> 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:

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.

> 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.

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

> 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.)

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.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail]  -  tel:[phone] |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |