Re: [core] Modernized Link Format

Klaus Hartke <> Thu, 11 October 2018 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A87130DE4 for <>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJI71lz6YJda for <>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8597::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B433130DD6 for <>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]); authenticated by running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1gAb1b-0008AQ-Hw; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:29:11 +0200
Received: by with SMTP id e22-v6so9784516qto.6 for <>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojz7J3B/4wDQb0dlal6cwspYa5nwfPOJisXjM2gMdCFSVh+HTVO G9+G0VkKidBmLze/3pb2wNV9zBJcoGDpq2l3WPI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60/h42nwcfrJg/FPBmEIaShZT/WcXtc7rKteXFI63/HCi9LbnH/CRDGtghBl5T3S7JoYo4miGr3zLEmKCW3lpM=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2c1b:: with SMTP id d27-v6mr1501718qta.18.1539264550623; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Klaus Hartke <>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:28:34 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_M=2E_Ams=C3=BCss?= <>
Cc: " WG" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-bounce-key:;; 1539264553; c76c5245;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1gAb1b-0008AQ-Hw
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] Modernized Link Format
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:29:20 -0000

Christian Amsüss wrote:
> We've ruled out c) over the last year b/c it means that features of the
> RD will not be available (ie. some links can not be expressed in any
> serialization format)

Just to clarify: You can always, write link targets as "URI" or
"path-absolute" [RFC3986], right? (That's not very efficient but not
not expressible.)

> Among b and a, a was picked because hopes were that would allow for the
> fastest progress of RD which is way behind schedule; also, it allows
> doing b1 later easily. I'm all for doing any of the b options, but I
> don't rather not have them delay the RD.

It creates a situation we really should avoid: A representation
format, identified by the "application/link-format" media type, that
changes its semantics depending on the context in which it is used (RD
or legacy application).

Thinking about it a bit more, I only see two ways forward: Keep the
"application/link-format" media type and add a version indicator to
the representation format that prevents legacy applications from
applying the wrong semantics. Or use an entirely different media type
(e.g., "application/link-format+cbor" with fixed rules,