Subject: Re: [httpapi] Should we adopt linkset media types and link relation?

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2021 10:43:53 -0800

hello all.

happy new year everybody!

On 2020-12-14 23:54, Herbert Van de Sompel wrote:
> I hope this clarifies the issue that was discussed in the recent WG 
> meeting. And, like Erik, I hope the I-D can be adopted.

looking at the minutes it seems that generally speaking, the group was 
ok with adopting the draft. the only question being raised was by alexey 
melnikov about possible overlaps with CoRE.

herbert was nice enough to post the summary of our considerations when 
we looked at CoRE at the very beginning of the linkset work. CoRE does 
look similar (and it is), but we decided that the approach wasn't 
matching our needs.

unless alexey (or anybody else) is asking for clarifications or a more 
detailed discussion, i think we have addressed the one outstanding issue 
that was identified in the IETF 109 meeting.

can we move forward with a formal request for adoption? this work is 
already used in implementations out there (including the very major 
scenario of GS1 as presented by phil archer), so our goal is to move it 
forward.

thanks a lot and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2021 20:37:21 +0000

Perhaps some of that can make it into the draft.

>    can we move forward with a formal request for adoption?

Sure, I'll start it next week.

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2021 14:19:10 -0800

hello.

> Perhaps some of that can make it into the draft.

i am not sure this would be particularly helpful except for people with 
a very specific knowledge of CoRE. asking the list: anybody having an 
opinion whether including a brief comparison with CoRE would be helpful 
or not?

> Sure, I'll start it next week.

great, thanks!

cheers,

dret.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2021 22:37:54 +0000

It can be in a draft and then removed, or it can be marked "please remove this section before publication as an RFC"  But I expect that heading off a likely IESG question would be a good thing to do.

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2021 15:44:33 -0800

hello rich.

> It can be in a draft and then removed, or it can be marked "please remove this section before publication as an RFC"  But I expect that heading off a likely IESG question would be a good thing to d…

fair enough. we'll turn that into the honorary first issue once we have 
the repo for managing the draft.

thanks and cheers,

dret.