IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> Thu, 17 February 2011 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ed.summers@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4053A6E0A for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:06:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vf-z1IYaD30L for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:06:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E693A6CAC for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:06:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so2698666iwc.31 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=G5WuPVyoZvSY8hWFwSsBT1feo59R6nsjlGDtuzz382o=; b=plEIgVChnrvkIcl48EUrk0AfPR14Kzv41x+5Cc624KcyoX/pm4RXzSvhPAiiklp57/ wexF+9mv8eoaHaRHeifzCdy3lli/8cd0IFesmKU9jM7nE6S1746/Ppb4E/tzThA6+bOs 3EEb0F46kuCaooPtaJY6Z02FQhOwgEYcKM+a8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=nr9DHke77AXu9BHTz2je+RYUNaLIcDnsqBp2U+3zCkVkR6IKlf/+vXy03ALqdpj7SA zaGaldddNxEg3ELcIb6iZurj5os6ztN6Mi1N5lC/BO4ktKCOtpY5sVEUlpNP1WnR7FAK jCjVsjZUYldiuPlM7Y4FL+alhcWfaiWTZMS4s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.38.2 with SMTP id z2mr1589483ibd.142.1297951629990; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ed.summers@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.35.140 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D5D252B.1080107@gmx.de>
References: <AANLkTi=gB=M+gM5JheX1pcNrdvgsiCzT6qi9zaYyL5X=@mail.gmail.com> <9F2D0C6E-340B-4505-A506-6340E203CBF4@mnot.net> <4D5BE9B3.9060703@gmx.de> <AANLkTimrtYa0AsAS4bKokLRqquF3v=BTUn=3qb5KH4U-@mail.gmail.com> <4D5D252B.1080107@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:07:09 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: yBf_UfAt7gdfih_mGu4tpZaAP0k
Message-ID: <AANLkTikFmnBcTF=qz1HQ9cGGkUa4T-T-MKVDXPXPF54i@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
To: samj@samj.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: gcolman@google.com, link-relations@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 17 Feb 2011 14:06:40 -0000

Hi Sam,

The link-relations registry folks (RFC 5988) would like to add
canonical to the registry [1,2]. Mark Nottingham noticed that you have
a IETF draft [3] that describes canonical as well as current,
immutable, latest, mirror, permalink and shortlink...which is great!

The draft just recently expired last month. And I noticed from a
bounce message to sj@google.com that you have changed employment. I
was wondering what it would take for us to push this forward, perhaps
as an Informational RFC so we can document the use of canonical (and
perhaps the others?). Did you get any feedback on the draft? As an
aside, it would be interesting to know if Google is currently using
the other link relations in any way. I think the link-relations
discussion list (cc'd here) would be a good place to discuss it.

Julian, Mark would Sam's draft need to be an RFC before we could link
to it from the registry? I guess a similar hosted at google.com would
work as well?

//Ed

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email