Mark Nottingham wrote:
How about:
<t>New relation types MUST correspond to a formal publication by a
recognized standards body. In the case of registration for
the IETF
itself, the registration proposal MUST be published as an
Standards-track RFC.</t>
Note that unlike media types, this does NOT require IESG approval for
relation types from outside the IETF; rather, just a 'formal
publication', which AIUI corresponds to the REC track in the W3C (but
not Notes), OASIS standard, etc.
Feedback appreciated.
...
Looking at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1>, this looks
like a mix between "Specification Required" and "RFC Required". The
difference to "Specification Required" being that only standards-track
RFCs are allowed, and that for non-IETF documents we required "formal
publication by a recognized standards body".
Is our case sufficiently different from "Specification Required" to
justify defining a new rule? (I'm not sure, but I think we should make
sure we considered it...)
BR, Julian
