Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-06-02 00:18, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 01.05.2011 19:34, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> ...
>>
>> I did answer in
>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00186.html>,
>> right?
>>
>> That being said, I totally agree this is moving too slowly.
>
> You said that a month ago, where the request was already two weeks old.
> In your answer you only asked a question; as far as I can tell none of
> the designated experts have so far approved or denied the request. So,
> "Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will
> either approve or deny the registration request" does not seem true. I,
> well, I am mostly wondering why anyone would have thought it a good idea
> to make this promise in the specification. Any thoughts on that? Keeping
> in mind that this promise has been broken several times, as far as I can
> tell.
>
> (I think it is an unreasonable requirement and am looking for what to
> tell the next person who proposes such a requirement so they abandon the
> idea early on, I don't really care about how many days it takes to
> register a link relation; in this instance, people could just have said
> they want Approve or Deny _now_ and I do think they would have gotten
> that timely, but dealing in such absolutes often leads to unhappiness.)

I agree with you that it's an unreasonable requirement.

I'm also forwarding this message to the people who've been working on 
the spec, but haven't submitted anything yet...

Best regards, Julian