Re: [httpapi] Francesca Palombini's Yes on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with COMMENT)

Dear Francesca,

In order to be able to continue the work on the linkset I-D, I would like
to ask for some guidance:

* In his DISCUSS review, Benjamin Kaduk seems to express a different
opinion than yours regarding how to handle the downrefs vis-a-vis another
Last Call (or not); he asks the IESG to discuss the matter. Am I correct to
assume that there is nothing we as authors can do to address this issue?

* In the same review, Benjamin also correctly points out an error with a
Content-Length in an example, which must be corrected. Other reviewers have
provided some comments that would be good to address as a means to improve
the document quality. Do we start a new version of the I-D in the HTTPAPI
Github repository for that purpose? And will that then automatically mean
another Last Call?

Greetings

Herbert Van de Sompel

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:11 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lars rightfully noted that two Downref (not in the downref registry)
> escaped
> the IETF Last Call automatically generated text:
>
>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6906
>    [RFC6906]  Wilde, E., "The 'profile' Link Relation Type", RFC 6906,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC6906, March 2013,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6906>.
>
>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7284
>    [RFC7284]  Lanthaler, M., "The Profile URI Registry", RFC 7284,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC7284, June 2014,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7284>.
>
> In conformance with https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8067.html, I believe
> there is
> no need for starting another LC for the document including these
> references,
> and I ask the rest of the IESG to pay particular attention to the
> appropriateness of these two downward references, as part of their IESG
> evaluation.
>
>
>
> --
> httpapi mailing list
> httpapi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi
>

-- 
==================
Herbert Van de Sompel
https://hvdsomp.info
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126