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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

That's fixed, thanks. The use of 'Parameter' is correct - it's referring to the concept in SF.

Cheers,


> On 9 Feb 2024, at 5:58 am, David Dong via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/