Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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. 

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.
>> 
>> 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 <http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090228033516/http://hixie.ch/specs/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

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/