Re: adding "pingback"

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 26 November 2015 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CE31A9071 for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PcJnr_GpP-Xd for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AC521A906F for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1916022E25F; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:52:01 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: adding "pingback"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5655DDAA.3020907@dret.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:51:59 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <90D32228-FD8C-4729-BA3C-B992093B4FDE@mnot.net>
References: <5655DDAA.3020907@dret.net>
To: Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net>, ian@hixie.ch
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/link-relations/ssWbDqmYQ3tb-b8xWxxEnXoqu-s>
Cc: link-relations <link-relations@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 26 Nov 2015 02:52:06 -0000

No drama, we can add it.

Ian, does this look right to you?

Relation Name: pingback
Description: Gives the address of the pingback resource for the link context
Reference: http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback
Notes:
Application Data:


> On 26 Nov 2015, at 3:11 am, Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net> wrote:
> 
> hello.
> 
> http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback defines a "pingback" relation that seems to have some adoption. the spec itself does not contain an IANA registration. however, since it is a relation that is in use, maybe it would make sense to add it to the IANA link relation type registry?
> 
> what is the process to add a link relation where the spec does not contain an IANA registration, but implementation and adoption suggest that including the value in the registry would be helpful for people encountering this relation on the web?
> 
> thanks and kind regards,
> 
> dret.
> 
> -- 
> erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net |
>           | http://dret.net/netdret    |
>           | http://twitter.com/dret    |
> 
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> link-relations@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

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