IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@subbu.org> Fri, 29 January 2010 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <subbu@subbu.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888413A690A for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:22:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSBkTOjTLNMF for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f227.google.com (mail-gx0-f227.google.com [209.85.217.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260813A6853 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk27 with SMTP id 27so1557886gxk.7 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.23.10 with SMTP id 10mr420854anw.61.1264746191725; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.0.196? (socks3.corp.yahoo.com [216.145.54.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm616190yxe.3.2010.01.28.22.23.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@subbu.org>
In-Reply-To: <08D686C3-17DD-4179-93A3-710728DA991B@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:23:07 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AAB9FDF5-08CC-4BE3-BC5D-CB00B146F65D@subbu.org>
References: <20100119053002.5CD613A683B@core3.amsl.com> <E4FF7733-D744-4AC3-AB99-66A12868E4CE@mnot.net> <A70E9FE8-512E-42A1-8523-042368DABBBC@subbu.org> <EA551C32-6AC0-4AE1-AB22-0BA8876022C9@mac.com> <0460AF05-93FE-41D1-8E7D-D2FE6889C1F9@subbu.org> <62C36D7B-2385-47AB-8A92-DEA15A81B99E@mac.com> <08D686C3-17DD-4179-93A3-710728DA991B@mnot.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:22:56 -0000

Could you elaborate on the purpose of such fields when they have no bearing on rels on the wire? The last para of 4.1 does include an example, but it seems vague. It also seems that any information that can be expressed via fields can equally be described in prose as part of the description.

Subbu

On Jan 28, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> No, the extension fields are in the registry itself; e.g., by adding a "foo" field to it, you add a "foo" field to every registered link relation type, in the registry (NOT on the wire). 
> 
> 
> On 23/01/2010, at 8:53 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
>> 
>>> You mean "link-extension" params?
>> 
>> Hmm, no I am getting confused :-)
>> 
>> I;d say link-extension == field.
>> 
>> Mark?
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Subbu
>>> 
>>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The usage of fields is not clear. Sec. 6.3 says that "entries in the Link Relation Type Registry can be extended with application-specific data". But the BNF in Sec. 5 does not specify fields. Could you clarify the intent of fields?
>>>> 
>>>> I understand fields to be meant as link relation specific parameters.
>>>> 
>>>> Jan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Subbu
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Internet-Draft@ietf.org
>>>>>>> Date: 19 January 2010 4:30:02 PM AEDT
>>>>>>> To: mnot@pobox.com, draft-nottingham-http-link-header@tools.ietf.org,lisa.dusseault@gmail.com
>>>>>>> Subject: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> New version (-07) has been submitted for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt.
>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
>>>>>>> Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff from previous version:
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IETF Secretariat.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> Jan Algermissen, Consultant
>>>> 
>>>> Mail: algermissen@acm.org
>>>> Blog: http://www.nordsc.com/blog/
>>>> Work: http://www.nordsc.com/
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------
>> Jan Algermissen, Consultant
>> 
>> Mail: algermissen@acm.org
>> Blog: http://www.nordsc.com/blog/
>> Work: http://www.nordsc.com/
>> -----------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email