Subject: [httpapi] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:03:04 -0800

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thanks for this document.

The overriding question that I had when reading this document (and the shepherd
writeup) is why are we defining two formats rather than one, given that
defining a single format would seem to increase interop and standardization by
obviously forcing everyone to do it only one way.

I appreciate that the HTTP Link Document format is simpler, and closer to the
"Link" header field, although I note that it is not exactly the same - it still
has differences.  I also appreciate that the HTTP Link Document format might be
slightly easier for humans to read, but how important it that for a link
document?

Hence, I would prefer to see the IETF just standardizing a single format, but
don't feel strongly enough to raise a discuss for it.  However, I would suggest
trying to expand section 3, or adding another section, to provide more guidance
as to when one format should be used in preference to the other.

Regards,
Rob