Yes. If we went pure "Specification Required", any RFC or NOTE (for
example) could be used as the basis of registration, as long as it
passed muster with a Designated Expert.
Either process would be fine by me; I'm mostly interested in what the
Atom and HTML folks think about these options.
On 10/12/2008, at 8:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
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
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
