Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Sun, 01 May 2011 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD82E06A5 for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:42 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tz-BFqmDr8Y1 for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7B7E0693 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so3652682pvh.31 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 May 2011 10:34:42 -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:cc :content-type; bh=ofVS8VWYkuSHLzHrzYPNsEkFqRjbdV84/lohj4dLpL4=; b=oAgLvahExV9q/tzUXyatDEbFGY0ku5EYTGig3r6hy++8icNAMmoH77vPuY5c9bC9Rq rSE9NoDjhJVkRnWxWEO4B8SQD2pWeV48YiwrxHSp5a+J1ZvW4IZueo1RvdoM6/QLRvFC Tvz7mzH9ezz+6slC/b4TXsyKPfbqCuXBQOxSM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=HAAdvj+98008bGzOY2U9jbLi/rTWHDdDa8DFxC1sdFKkNnf4ULQeJ4Lw3dMMhKkOKg ErvDUmhNTHm0MHnmyTLFR3oVJr/Pj7YZ1A7XbMrvvKKVwZlbLVB1a/wDPFsLSfyJSqIh CWiKdWTRQwqDw2RCU4Rwjjcxdm8xks3hFsfRo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.191.3 with SMTP id o3mr2861581wff.59.1304271281951; Sun, 01 May 2011 10:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.6.15 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 19:34:41 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimg41ARufdRi0pMCP7LXSmqsgiuRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
To: link-relations <link-relations@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: app-ads <app-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations>
List-Post: <mailto:link-relations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 17:34:42 -0000

Hi, apparently the list archive does not yet support the cute
In-Reply-To trick explained
in the mailto: RFC (RFC 6068 section 6.1) to get the threading right,
but as there are not
many posts here (link-relations@ietf) this is hopefully no big issue.

On 2011-04-15 I posted "NEW RELATION - canonical", and one day later I
amended it by
s/similar similar/similar/.  After two weeks that's now an "ETMO"
(error time out), and
RFC 5988 offers no default accept or reject rule.

Now I would normally go directly to IANA with a pointer to the thread
here, after at most
a year they always figured out what to do with obscure registration
requests.  But section
6.2.1 in RFC 5988 explicitly insists on an appeal mailto:app-ads@tools.ietf

Let's see what happens,
 Frank