Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Tue, 12 July 2022 20:41 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFBCC157B32; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.998, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SpsRQw1PZmZV; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1410C159484; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 6222E4C0A1; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: erik.wilde@dret.net, herbert.van.de.sompel@dans.knaw.nl
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, httpapi-ads@ietf.org, httpapi-chairs@ietf.org, rsalz@akamai.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220712204109.6222E4C0A1@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:41:09 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/zF_xT9BGWiQrExgtf8XCe6zp1J0>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:41:41 -0000
Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. 1) <!-- [rfced] Authors' Addresses: We try to avoid using "http://" in RFCs unless they are used as specific examples of non-secure HTTP. Changing "http://dret.net/netdret/" to "https://dret.net/netdret/" yields "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" (Firefox) or "This Connection Is Not Private" (Safari). It appears that the requested domain name does not match the server's certificate. Should this URL be updated to use "https://"? Original: URI: http://dret.net/netdret/ --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please provide any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1 and subsequent: There are eight instances of '"linkset" relation type' in running text in this document, but only the last instance (in Appendix A) uses the "<tt>" element to set it off with a different font in the .html and .pdf outputs. For consistency of style, would you like to use "<tt>" around the other seven instances? --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3: Section 15 of RFC 9110 (the published version of draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics) uses different wording for error codes 413 and 414 - "413 (Content Too Large)" and "414 (URI Too Long)", respectively. We have updated the following to match. Original: Section 15 of HTTP [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] defines error codes related to excess communication by the user agent ("413 Request Entity Too Large" and "414 Request-URI Too Long"), but no specific error codes are defined to indicate that response field content exceeds the upper bound that can be handled by the server and thus has been truncated. Current: Section 15 of "HTTP Semantics" [RFC9110] defines error codes related to excess communication by the user agent ("413 Content Too Large" and "414 URI Too Long"), but no specific error codes are defined to indicate that response field content exceeds the upper bound that can be handled by the server and thus has been truncated. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1: In the following, does "ones" refer to subsequent ABNF rules? Original: This document format is nearly identical to the field value of the HTTP "Link" header field as defined in Section 3 of [RFC8288], more specifically by its ABNF [RFC5234] production rule for "Link" and subsequent ones. Perhaps: This document format is nearly identical to the field value of the HTTP "Link" header field as defined in Section 3 of [RFC8288], more specifically by its ABNF [RFC5234] production rule for "Link" and its subsequent rules. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] As Figures 7 through 21 have titles, would you like to provide titles for Figures 1 through 6? If yes, please specify. Original: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7: Client HTTP GET request Figure 8: Response to HTTP GET includes a set of links etc. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.5: "allows to" does not parse. We updated this sentence as follows. If this does not preserve your intended meaning, please provide clarifying text. Original: Limiting the JSON format in this way allows to unambiguously round trip between links provided in the HTTP "Link" header field, sets of links serialized according to the "application/linkset" format, and sets of links serialized according to the "application/linkset+json" format. Currently: Limiting the JSON format in this way allows unambiguous round trips between links provided in the HTTP "Link" header field, sets of links serialized according to the "application/linkset" format, and sets of links serialized according to the "application/linkset+json" format. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Sections 7.1 and subsequent: We changed <artwork type="http-message"' to '<sourcecode type="http-message"' per <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>. Please let us know any concerns. Also, should Figure 19 in Appendix A be '<sourcecode type="http-message"' as well? --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Figure 14: Would you like the ";" (semicolon) lines to be indented per Figures 8, 10, 12, and 19? We ask because Figure 14 appears to be an outlier as far as the indentation (or lack thereof) goes. Original: HTTP/1.1 307 Temporary Redirect Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:03:07 GMT Server: nginx Link: https://id.gs1.org/01/9506000134352?linkType=all ; rel="linkset" ; type="application/linkset+json" ; profile="https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes" Location: https://example.com/risotto-rice-with-mushrooms/ Possibly: HTTP/1.1 307 Temporary Redirect Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:03:07 GMT Server: nginx Link: <https://id.gs1.org/01/9506000134352?linkType=all> ; rel="linkset" ; type="application/linkset+json" ; profile="https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes" Location: https://example.com/risotto-rice-with-mushrooms/ --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.4.2: We changed "used in <xref target="Response_pr_at"/>" to "used in Figure 14". Please let us know any concerns. Original: Note the "profile" parameter for the application/linkset+json media type, which has as value the same Profile URI <https://www.gs1.org/ voc/?show=linktypes> as was used in <xref target="Response_pr_at"/>. Currently: Note the "profile" parameter for the "application/linkset+json" media type, which has as its value the same profile URI <https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes> as was used in Figure 14. --> 11) <!-- [rfced] Figure 17: Should the '; rel="profile"' be on a separate line and indented, per the other examples in this document? Original: Link: https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes; rel="profile" Possibly: Link: <https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes> ; rel="profile" --> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.2: These sentences do not parse well. If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. Note: We will also ask IANA to update <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/linkset> so that it matches the updated version of this document. Original: Encoding considerations: Linksets are encoded according to the definition of [RFC8288]. The encoding of [RFC8288] is based on the general encoding rules of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], with the addition of allowing indicating character encoding and language for specific parameters as defined by [RFC8187]. Suggested: Encoding considerations: Linksets are encoded according to the definitions provided in [RFC8288]. The encoding discussed in [RFC8288] is based on the general encoding rules specified by HTTP [RFC9110] and allows specific parameters to be extended by the indication of character encoding and language as defined by [RFC8187]. --> 13) <!-- [rfced] Normative References, [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116]: According to <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/>, "W3C Recommendation 16 January 2014 superseded 03 November 2020" (which is odd, because the latest published version at <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/> is dated July 2020). If the information in Section 6.1 of <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/> (JSON-LD 1.1) is still applicable to the citations in this document that point to Section 6.8 of the 2014 (JSON-LD 1.0) version, may we update as suggested? Current (Section 4.2, Normative References, and Appendix A): This can be achieved by adding an appropriate context to the "application/linkset+json" serialization using the approach described in Section 6.8 of [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116]. ... [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116] Sporny, M., Ed., Kellogg, G., Ed., and M. Lanthaler, Ed., "JSON-LD 1.0", W3C Recommendation REC-json-ld-20140116, January 2014, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116>. ... A set of links rendered according to the JSON serialization defined in Section 4.2 can be interpreted as RDF triples by adding a JSON-LD context [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116] that maps the JSON keys to corresponding Linked Data terms. And, as per Section 6.8 of [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116], when delivering a link set that is rendered according to the "application/linkset+json" media type to a user agent, a server can convey the availability of such a JSON-LD context by using a link with the relation type "https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" in the HTTP "Link" header field. Suggested: This can be achieved by adding an appropriate context to the "application/linkset+json" serialization using the approach described in Section 6.1 of [W3C.REC-json-ld]. ... [W3C.REC-json-ld] Sporny, M., Ed., Kellogg, G., Ed., and M. Lanthaler, Ed., "JSON-LD 1.1: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data", W3C Consortium Recommendation REC-json-ld, July 2020, <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/>. ... A set of links rendered according to the JSON serialization defined in Section 4.2 can be interpreted as RDF triples by adding a JSON-LD context [W3C.REC-json-ld] that maps the JSON keys to corresponding Linked Data terms. And, as per Section 6.1 of [W3C.REC-json-ld], when delivering a link set that is rendered according to the "application/linkset+json" media type to a user agent, a server can convey the availability of such a JSON-LD context by using a link with the relation type "https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" in the HTTP "Link" header field. --> 14) <!-- [rfced] Informative References: Because the in-text citation for [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225] in Section 4.2 is general in nature, we changed the URL so that the latest version will always be retrieved. Please let us know any objections. Original (Section 4.2 and Informative References): Appendix A shows an example of a possible context that, when added to a JSON serialization, allows it to be interpreted as Resource Description Framework (RDF) [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225] data. ... [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225] Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., and M. Lanthaler, "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225, 25 February 2014, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225>. Currently: Appendix A shows an example of a possible context that, when added to a JSON serialization, allows it to be interpreted as Resource Description Framework (RDF) data [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts]. ... [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts] Cyganiak, R., Ed., Wood, D., Ed., and M. Lanthaler, Ed., "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax", W3C Consortium Recommendation REC-rdf11-concepts, February 2014, <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/>. --> 15) <!-- [rfced] Informative References: After removing Appendix B ("Implementation Status"), RFC 7942 ("Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section") was no longer cited anywhere in this document. We removed the reference listing accordingly. Please let us know any concerns. --> 16) <!-- [rfced] Appendix A: As <http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context> redirects to <https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context>, we changed the in-text instances of "http://" to "https://" in the text and in Figure 19 accordingly. Please let us know if these updates are incorrect (i.e., is there a particular reason that this document uses "http://" instead of "https://"?). Original: And, as per [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116] section 6.8 (https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/ REC-json-ld-20140116/#interpreting-json-as-json-ld), when delivering a link set that is rendered according to the "application/ linkset+json" media type to a user agent, a server can convey the availability of such a JSON-LD context by using a link with the relation type "http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" in the HTTP "Link" header. ... In order to obtain the JSON-LD Context conveyed by the server, the user agent issues an HTTP GET against the link target of the link with the "http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" relation type. ... rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" Currently: And, as per Section 6.8 of [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116], when delivering a link set that is rendered according to the "application/linkset+json" media type to a user agent, a server can convey the availability of such a JSON-LD context by using a link with the relation type "<https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context>" in the HTTP "Link" header field. ... In order to obtain the JSON-LD Context conveyed by the server, the user agent issues an HTTP GET against the link target of the link with the "<https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context>" relation type. ... rel="https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" --> 17) <!-- [rfced] Appendix A: a) We see that the <http://purl.org> entries redirect to <https://www.dublincore.org> pages (which we see are fairly long in length and would have to be broken across lines if used in the figures). We try to avoid using "http://" in RFCs if the URLs/URIs redirect to "https://" pages, unless they are used as specific examples of non-secure HTTP. Should this topic be further explained in this section, or does the citation for [DCMI-TERMS] in the paragraph after Figure 19 clarify this topic sufficiently? b) We also see that <https://id.gs1.org/01/09506000149301> redirects to <https://www.gs1.org/industries/retail/2D-barcodes>. Please let us know if any updates are needed regarding this URL. --> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>, and let us know if any changes are needed. --> 19) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the following: a) The following terms were used inconsistently in this document. We chose to use the latter forms. Please let us know any objections. anchor member / "anchor" member header / header field (when discussing fields rather than the entire header) href member / "href" member Link: https://... / Link: <https://...> (Per published RFCs. We could not find any instances of "Link:" lines that did not have bracketed URLs.) Profile URI / profile URI (used generally in running text) (per post-6000 published RFCs) Web linking model / Web Linking model b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this document. Please let us know which form is preferred. HTTP "Link" header field / HTTP Link header field* * As RFC 8288 uses the latter form (i.e., HTTP Link header field), we suggest removing the quotes. JSON-LD context / JSON-LD Context (running text in Appendix A) (We see that usage in <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/> is inconsistent as well. No precedent in published RFCs.) Web Links (Section 1) / web links (Section 8) --> Thank you. RFC Editor/lb/jm On 7/12/22 3:37 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2022/07/12 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264-xmldiff1.html The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own diff files of the XML. Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.original.v2v3.xml XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.form.xml Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9264 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9264 (draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10) Title : Linkset: Media Types and a Link Relation Type for Link Sets Author(s) : E. Wilde, H. Van de Sompel WG Chair(s) : Darrel Miller, Rich Salz Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpa… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Erik Wilde
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Herbert van de Sompel
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Lynne Bartholomew
- [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <d… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Erik Wilde
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Herbert van de Sompel
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-h… Lynne Bartholomew
- [auth48] [IANA #1233863] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t… Sabrina Tanamal via RT
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1233863] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Lynne Bartholomew