So I've submitted the revised version, taking into account all the LC
comments, and the consensus on defining W3C's current practice (as I
see many comments received with this respect) rather than two separate
relation types. A number of other edits have been made; you may see
the diffs at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-01
and the draft at
tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-01.
Meanwhile, as the document is deferred to next IESG telechat, you may
freely submit your comments on this version, either publicly or
privately to the author.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
2012/1/4 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>:
<hat type='AD'/>
On 1/2/12 12:36 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
While that was me who proposed the change to semantics, I tend more
and more to agree with documenting the existing practice; but let's
wait a response from W3C community first to see what's their attitude
towards the proposal.
Mykyta,
You have not yet submitted a revised I-D. Currently the document under
consideration is draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00. If you want
to make fundamental changes to the spec, please do so by submitting a
revised I-D.
In the meantime, I have deferred the document to the January 19 telechat
while you decide how you want to proceed.
If you decide that you want to define two link relations instead of one,
you will need to submit a revised I-D, which will need to undergo
another review on the link-relations(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list and then
another IETF
Last Call.
There is no need to waste IESG and general IETF attention on this
specification if the author can't make up his mind about his own intentions.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf