Subject: Comments Extension: IANA Registration or Not?

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:45:50 -0700

Hey all, quick opinion poll.

For the comments extension, I can write the Internet Draft such that the 
link rels are registered with IANA or are identified by fully qualified 
URI's. What is the general preference of the group?  I'd prefer IANA 
registration but that carries an obvious level of overhead.

- James

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:05:51 -0700

At 9:45 AM -0700 7/28/05, James M Snell wrote:
>For the comments extension, I can write the Internet Draft such that 
>the link rels are registered with IANA or are identified by fully 
>qualified URI's. What is the general preference of the group?  I'd 
>prefer IANA registration but that carries an obvious level of 
>overhead.

IANA registration gives you the advantage that the identifier used 
can be easily tied to some long-lived description of what it means. 
The disadvantage is the overhead of registration.

Using a URI that is expected to, when resolved, describe what it 
means is a reasonable way to do things even if the resolution breaks 
at some point, as long as there is a longer-lived source of a copy of 
what the description was.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:29:11 +1000

> registration but that carries an obvious level of overhead.

IANA please.

e.

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:57:59 +0200

* James M Snell <[email-masked]> [2005-07-28 19:00]:
> What is the general preference of the group?

This is something I’d like to see adopted widely, eventually, so
I’d prefer the more formal IANA route.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>