Re: [link-relations] NEW APP DATA

[Ian Hickson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 15.07.2010 09:54, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > ...
> > The registration process doesn't mention a specification requirement, so
> > I'm not sure exactly what to provide here.
> 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10.html#rfc.section.6.3>:
> 
>    Application data is registered on the advice of a Designated Expert
>    (appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a Specification
>    Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]).
> 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1>:
> 
>       Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be
>             documented in a permanent and readily available public
>             specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
>             between independent implementations is possible.  When used,
>             Specification Required also implies use of a Designated
>             Expert, who will review the public specification and
>             evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow
>             interoperable implementations.  The intention behind
>             "permanent and readily available" is that a document can
>             reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long
>             after IANA assignment of the requested value.  Publication
>             of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement,
>             but Specification Required is intended to also cover the
>             case of a document published outside of the RFC path.  For
>             RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected
>             to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though
>             the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified
>             person to perform such a review.
> 
>             Examples: Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model
>             Identifiers [RFC4124], TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers
>             [RFC4346], ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC4995].

It's not clear to me if the quotes above were intended to answer my 
question or were just helpful background, but since no other reply has 
been forthcoming, I should reiterate that I have no idea what is needed as 
part of the registration of fields in terms of a specification.

Would an equivalent of this section but for this registry be suitable?:

   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#other-link-types

Any help would be most welcome. I thought I had completed the template as 
described in the "Link Relation Application Data Registry" section.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'