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

Thanks, Benjamin.

We created a new version and started to address comments.

Greetings

Herbert

> On Mar 3, 2022, at 09:00, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Herbert,
> 
> I'm not Francesca but should be able to provide useful responses
> regardless.
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:51:00AM +0100, Herbert Van de Sompel wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> That's correct that there is no action for the authors at this time.
> (In some sense this point is me using technology to mitigate human
> weakness, as the meeting where the IESG will discuss the topic is at 0700h
> my time and I will not necessarily be awake enough to remember to mention
> it, without the extra nudge here.)
> For what it's worth, I don't think Francesca's position is inaccurate --
> there is no strict requirement to do another Last Call, but it's subject to
> the IESG's judgment and I think the topic I raised will be a relevant
> factor for the IESG's decision.  I do not attempt to prejudge what the
> outcome of the IESG discussion will be.
> 
>> * 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?
> 
> Yes, please go ahead and start a new version in the github repository.
> Such changes will not automatically mean a new Last Call.  (If, in
> Francesca's assessment, the changes made are "substantial enough" a last
> call might be needed, but there is no process requirement that one will
> always be needed.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
>> 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