Provisional registration request: carbon.txt

[timcowlishaw]

Please confirm that:

• You have read and understood the requirements for registration.
• You have checked the registry and found no current value that meets your needs.
• Your specification reference URL is stable; ideally, managed by a widely-recognised standards development organisation (e.g., published as an RFC). Otherwise, please give additional information.

If so, please enter the details of the well-known URI below:

• URI suffix: carbon.txt
• Change controller: The Green Web Foundation (https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org, contact: support@greenweb.org)
• Specification document(s): https://carbontxt.org/syntax

Any additional information (this will not be included in the registry)?

Hey folks, I work for the Green Web Foundation on our carbon.txt project, a proposed standardised approach for communicating information about a website's environmental impacts and sustainability commitments. We currently specify in the specification that a carbon.txt file may be placed at /carbon.txt or at /.well-known/carbon.txt, and it'd be great to register the latter formally. We've not yet submitted this proposal for recognition as a formal standard, but are involved in discussions on related standards work at the IETF and W3C. @mnot recommended a while back that we register provisionally, but we somehow dropped the ball on that, so are picking up that conversation again!

Tagging @mrchrisadams in too who is also working on the project.

Many thanks!

Tim

[mnot]

Hi,

This is a bare word + suffix registration -- per registry policy, names like that are reserved for recognised SDOs.

Registration can proceed if you choose a more specific name (e.g., greenweb-carbon.txt), have the Green Web Foundation apply to the IESG to be a recognised SDO (although note that this may take some time, as that AIUI that procedure is in flux), or get a specification published by another SDO (e.g., as an IETF document).

The other possibility would be some kind of evidence of substantial adoption by Web sites.

Apologies for the runaround, but we've had to institute some policies to deal with a flood of spurious registrations, and they need to be consistently applied.

[mrchrisadams]

Thanks @mnot , I appreciate the reasoning for not accepting it right now. Of the options laid out, I think going via an SDO might make more sense.

I'm leading on the work with the Green Software Foundation and the W3C on a project called Software Carbon Intensity for Web, and we're active in the IRTF, specifically the Sustain working group. At IETF 126 in Vienna, carbon.txt was discussed in the session (see this recorded youtube stream for the IETF Sustain group session)

The GSF and IETF/IRTF seem like two possible avenues for the SDO route - thanks for the suggestion.