Subject: Request to AD-sponsor publication of draft-wilde-service-link-rel-06 and draft-wilde-sunset-header-06

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 10:02:47 +0100

Dear HTTPBIS WG participants,

I've been asked by Erik Wilde to AD-sponsor publication of the following
2 documents:

1) "Link Relation Types for Web Services":
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-service-link-rel/>
2) "The Sunset HTTP Header":
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-sunset-header/>

I am soliciting feedback on these documents, in particular:

a) Do people think that these are useful documents and that they should
be published as RFCs? (Both statements of support and objections are
appreciated. Feel free to send your replies directly to me.)

b) If people think that these are useful contributions to the RFC
series, does this WG wants to take one or both of them as WG items or is
it Ok for me to just AD-sponsor them?

Assuming response to publishing these 2 documents is positive, I am also
looking for document shepherds to help out with reviews and publication
process. If you never done this and want to learn, these are probably
good documents to start with, as they are both short and relatively simple.

Thank you,
Alexey, as an ART Area Director.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:50:14 +1000

I have a slight preference for taking this through the WG process, but
only because I think that is always better than AD sponsorship.  That
said, after looking at the content, these are well-written and simple
enough that any process they take should only be brief.

Seeing the proliferation of new link relations at around the same time
as new Prefer labels makes me wonder if we need a new "Prefer:
meta=minimal/full" option so that all that extra stuff can be
suppressed.  At some point header compression isn't good enough to
hold back the flood.

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:48:35 -0400

hello martin.

> enough that any process they take should only be brief.

thanks, and of course i'd be happy to do it either way. if there's 
anything i can do to help decide which way to go, please let me know.

> suppressed.  At some point header compression isn't good enough to

good point. although my expectation (and the current uses i have seen) 
is to see the link relations being used in content much more than in 
header fields. but of course you never know what will actually happen 
over time.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

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