Re: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

Just back from an August vacation, apologies for brevity
IMHO 
An update to BCP 190 should take into account the fact that
there is not a consensus for the "best" of various "current
practice" for avoiding the URL squatting identified (namely
using a hypermedia format to let the server control the
URL format completely rather than the API control the
URL syntax and making the client do string processing.


As far as process goes, I think it's ok to drop the DISCUSS in
 question because it is Experimental and not Standards track.


As  Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote  Sunday, July 28, 2019 1:43 AM
Re: [art] On BCP 190

> 
> On Jul 28, 2019, at 08:26, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Now, why JSON-HAL is still an expired  Internet Draft is a puzzle.
> 
> (Slightly, but not completely off-topic:)
> 
> Probably because there are multiple ways to skin this cat and we never 
> tried to converge on one.
> 
> As a data point, for the applications in the CoRE working group, we 
> have mostly been able to avoid BCP190-style arguments by using 
> /.well-known, mainly because simple devices only tend to have one 
> service offered directly under / and because IoT device platforms tend 
> to provide the application developer full control over the URI space.  
> /.well-known/core provides a discovery mechanism for the entry point URIs
actually offered by a server.
> 
> For where this is not enough, the WG has just last week adopted CoRAL 
> (not yet resubmitted as draft-ietf, so you can find it at 
> draft-hartke-t2trg-coral) as our idea of a hypermedia format like HAL.  
> Up to now, we tried to make everything work with RFC 6690 link format, 
> but that has too many idiosyncrasies that started to get in the way of a
long-term way forward.