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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 21 April 2011 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05FEE071E for <link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t4Fk96dfuqwl for <link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F30E071B for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.44] (unknown [124.148.171.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CA11509EB; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:57:49 -0400 (EDT)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008102113040.11992@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <69D54950-1FE2-4714-9FED-569142BBF1A4@mnot.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008110320320.11977@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <B287E435-5C63-448B-ACD9-E3319FCDBF14@mnot.net> <4D9E0844.50808@gmx.de> <4B908F60-1368-4C34-82D8-B74F8B0211E5@mnot.net> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447535BBB67@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447535BBB67@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8H7)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <90E2E6FF-3405-4262-9AFE-C23B9FDBB563@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8H7)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:57:51 +1000
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "link-relations@ietf.org" <link-relations@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback
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: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:57:57 -0000

No; I-ds are very specifically temporary docs, and designed to be superceded. It might make sense to reserve an entry based upon an active I-d, of course. 

On 21/04/2011, at 4:44 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>; wrote:

> Makes sense to me.
> 
> As an aside, would an expired I-D work as an alternative copy?
> 
> EHL
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: link-relations-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:link-relations-
>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:23 PM
>> To: Julian Reschke
>> Cc: Ian Hickson; link-relations@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> link-relations mailing list
>> link-relations@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations