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

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 23:25:53 -0800

Murray Kucherawy 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What happens if I don't follow the SHOULD in Section 4.1?  Are there
interoperability risks?

Section 8.1 should be explicit that the name of the registry it's updating is
"Link Relation Type Registry".

In Sections 8.2 and 8.3, "Required Parameters" should be "N/A", not "None", per
RFC 6838 Section 5.6.

---

From: Herbert Van de Sompel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 12:16:57 +0100

hi Murray,

Your comments were addressed either by edits to the I-D or by feedback
provided below under "Response". New I-D version at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/linkset/blob/master/draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-09.xml

Greetings

Herbert

===============

Response: Clients may not be able to parse the Link header when newline
characters are not removed when converting an "application/linkset"
document to the value of a Link header because I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics
does not allow newlines.

Section 8.1 should be explicit that the name of the registry it's updating
is
"Link Relation Type Registry".

Response: fixed in the I-D

In Sections 8.2 and 8.3, "Required Parameters" should be "N/A", not "None",
per
RFC 6838 Section 5.6.

Response: fixed in the I-D

===============

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:26 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> --
> httpapi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi
>

-- 
==================
Herbert Van de Sompel
https://hvdsomp.info
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:53:02 -0800

Hi Herbert,

> document to the value of a Link header because I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics

This sounds to me more like MUST territory than SHOULD, then.

-MSK

---

From: Herbert Van de Sompel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:10:59 +0100

> This sounds to me more like MUST territory than SHOULD, then.
Addressed in commit
https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/linkset/commit/834e24005e6e4dbccb292707fdc0ce58ee9b3724
.

Greetings

Herbert