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

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

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