Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST

No; I-ds are very specifically temporary docs, and designed to be superceded.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