From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Sun May 1 10:34:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD82E06A5 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tz-BFqmDr8Y1 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7B7E0693 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so3652682pvh.31 for ; Sun, 01 May 2011 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=ofVS8VWYkuSHLzHrzYPNsEkFqRjbdV84/lohj4dLpL4=; b=oAgLvahExV9q/tzUXyatDEbFGY0ku5EYTGig3r6hy++8icNAMmoH77vPuY5c9bC9Rq rSE9NoDjhJVkRnWxWEO4B8SQD2pWeV48YiwrxHSp5a+J1ZvW4IZueo1RvdoM6/QLRvFC Tvz7mzH9ezz+6slC/b4TXsyKPfbqCuXBQOxSM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=HAAdvj+98008bGzOY2U9jbLi/rTWHDdDa8DFxC1sdFKkNnf4ULQeJ4Lw3dMMhKkOKg ErvDUmhNTHm0MHnmyTLFR3oVJr/Pj7YZ1A7XbMrvvKKVwZlbLVB1a/wDPFsLSfyJSqIh CWiKdWTRQwqDw2RCU4Rwjjcxdm8xks3hFsfRo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.191.3 with SMTP id o3mr2861581wff.59.1304271281951; Sun, 01 May 2011 10:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.6.15 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 19:34:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Frank Ellermann To: link-relations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: app-ads Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 17:34:42 -0000 Hi, apparently the list archive does not yet support the cute In-Reply-To trick explained in the mailto: RFC (RFC 6068 section 6.1) to get the threading right, but as there are not many posts here (link-relations@ietf) this is hopefully no big issue. On 2011-04-15 I posted "NEW RELATION - canonical", and one day later I amended it by s/similar similar/similar/. After two weeks that's now an "ETMO" (error time out), and RFC 5988 offers no default accept or reject rule. Now I would normally go directly to IANA with a pointer to the thread here, after at most a year they always figured out what to do with obscure registration requests. But section 6.2.1 in RFC 5988 explicitly insists on an appeal mailto:app-ads@tools.ietf Let's see what happens, Frank From derhoermi@gmx.net Sun May 1 11:09:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0E9E0693 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 11:09:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.429 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.830, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kATAV+7AXGCB for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 11:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AE34AE06BB for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 11:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 May 2011 18:08:21 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-223-189-018.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.223.189.18] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 01 May 2011 20:08:21 +0200 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+BgnBzONKBRr2kqkZP7vQoV8CZebm+S6fS/CUlFK MAdPSKRp+3WuvP From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Frank Ellermann Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 20:08:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 18:09:26 -0000 * Frank Ellermann wrote: >Hi, apparently the list archive does not yet support the cute >In-Reply-To trick explained >in the mailto: RFC (RFC 6068 section 6.1) to get the threading right, >but as there are not >many posts here (link-relations@ietf) this is hopefully no big issue. The list archive, the HTML version that is, the raw archives are also available via FTP, has a comment at the top with the message-id, like   which you could use to construct the mailto: reference yourself (or someone could make, say, a bookmarklet or browser extension for it). >On 2011-04-15 I posted "NEW RELATION - canonical", and one day later I >amended it by >s/similar similar/similar/. After two weeks that's now an "ETMO" [...] >Let's see what happens, Thanks for trying that, I am curious myself. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sun May 1 13:09:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C7AE06BB for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 13:09:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.927 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.328, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfhVQoBa9EcW for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 13:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F0111E06AC for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 May 2011 20:09:20 -0000 Received: from p508FDF2F.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.223.47] by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 01 May 2011 22:09:20 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/XR5MUj7LXswJKI70M9Dv8W2V1TKDK9M4eMTeYjo HlPbl1M3Ftu7mD Message-ID: <4DBDBDE3.7060502@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 22:09:07 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: app-ads , link-relations Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 20:09:39 -0000 On 01.05.2011 19:34, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Hi, apparently the list archive does not yet support the cute > In-Reply-To trick explained > in the mailto: RFC (RFC 6068 section 6.1) to get the threading right, > but as there are not > many posts here (link-relations@ietf) this is hopefully no big issue. > > On 2011-04-15 I posted "NEW RELATION - canonical", and one day later I > amended it by > s/similar similar/similar/. After two weeks that's now an "ETMO" > (error time out), and > RFC 5988 offers no default accept or reject rule. > ... I did answer in , right? That being said, I totally agree this is moving too slowly. Best regards, Julian