Re: [apps-discuss] URI templates in Link header fields

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Tue, 30 August 2016 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E2D12B01B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e9aXzMBWWar7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 456E012D608 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [75.83.2.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BA38509B6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <410cba92-83fa-8e4c-73ff-ac97ea5f8d32@gmx.de> <57C57D2D.30302@ninebynine.org>
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Message-ID: <15e3df96-b806-fe96-03a8-f564af25f1e5@seantek.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:41:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57C57D2D.30302@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/Qx9OF8EeoSzSdwP3kKAIYktL6c0>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] URI templates in Link header fields
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:50:34 -0000

Overall it's a good idea, so +1 to the effort (to add URI template 
support to HTTP Links).

I give +½ to the consolidation comment. It would be good to consolidate, 
but I do not know if consolidating to one spec would put excessive 
burdens on diverse implementations that only need selected features 
(i.e., to support all features). Lack of knowledge of this space, that's 
all.

Regards,

Sean

On 8/30/2016 5:33 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've wanted something like this in the past, and I *thought* I had 
> some code that accepted a template in a custom header field.  But on 
> closer examination, I see that I passed a template in the body of a 
> POST submission.
>
> It's something I could see myself using if specified.
>
> And +1 to Erik Wilde's comment: "it would be great to consolidate all 
> of this so that tooling and implementations can rely on a robust spec".
>
> #g
> -- 
>
>
> On 29/08/2016 09:42, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Hi there.
>>
>> RFC 5988, defining the HTTP Link header field, predates RFC 6570, 
>> defining URI
>> templates.
>>
>> In the meantime, I heard of a few cases where people were trying to use
>> templates in Link header fields (an obvious thing to do), and came up 
>> with hacks
>> to do so with the existing Link header field.
>>
>> I'm tempted to work on a small spec that defines an experimental new 
>> header
>> field, similar to Link but allowing templates.
>>
>> Is anybody aware of existing code trying to use templates in Link 
>> header fields?
>> If so, please report over here (or in doubt send private email).
>>
>> Best regards, Julian