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@xxxxxxxxxx>: > <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@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf