[httpapi] [IANA #1273263] expert review for draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template (http-fields)

[David Dong via RT <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors/Chairs/ADs,

An expert has pointed out a typo; please see below. No changes in the expert review status.

Thank you.

Best regards,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

On Mon Feb 05 19:55:01 2024, [e-mail] wrote:
> My prior expert review still applies to this draft (approved).
> 
> Unrelated to IANA, I also noticed a typo
> 
> "Structure Field" -> "Structured Fields
> 
> and there are several places in the new text where parameter
> has been oddly capitalized as "Parameter".
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> 
> > On Feb 5, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Amanda Baber via RT <drafts-expert-
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Roy (cc: httpapi WG),
> >
> > Does version -03 of this document need another review? You approved
> > -02:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpapi-link-
> > template-03
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Amanda Baber
> > IANA Operations Manager
> >
> > On Wed May 24 19:42:13 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>> On May 24, 2023, at 10:14 AM, David Dong via RT <drafts-expert-
> >>> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Roy and Mark (cc: httpapi WG)
> >>>
> >>> As the designated experts for the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
> >>> (HTTP)
> >>> Field Name registry, can you review the proposed registration in
> >>> draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-02 for us? Please see:
> >>>
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template/
> >>>
> >>> The due date is June 7th, 2023.
> >>>
> >>> As Mark is the author of this draft, we will act on Roy's review.
> >>>
> >>> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication,
> >>> we'll make the registration at:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/
> >>
> >> The registration information in section 4 looks good and has the
> >> appropriate status,
> >> so I believe this to be OK for registration by IANA.
> >>
> >> As for HTTP considerations, I expect Link-Template to be potentially
> >> useful as
> >> a trailer as well, particularly to supply optional links determined
> >> by
> >> the sender
> >> while content is being generated (i.e., after the header section has
> >> been sent).
> >> However, the spec doesn't even mention trailers. This would be a
> >> good
> >> time
> >> for Mark to review what we wrote in
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-
> >> editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#considerations.for.new.fields
> >>
> >> and be sure that the spec documents those aspects not already
> >> covered
> >> by the
> >> choice of structured syntax. [Use of Link in trailers wasn't
> >> mentioned
> >> in RFC8288.]
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> ....Roy
> >