Protocol Action: 'Web Linking' to Proposed Standard (draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-08.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 17 August 2017 13:16 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Web Linking' to Proposed Standard (draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-08.txt)
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, barryleiba@computer.org, draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <150297578267.12444.13025086892292433619.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:16:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/0pQb0rUUfmizR6iNzmx1jB01e8k>

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Web Linking'
  (draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF
Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Alexey Melnikov.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis/




Technical Summary

   This specification defines a model for the relationships between
   resources on the Web ("links") and the type of those relationships
   ("link relation types").

   It also defines the serialisation of such links in HTTP headers with
   the Link header field.

  This document obsoletes RFC 5988.

Working Group Summary

  This is not a WG document, but it is based on experience running
  the Web Linking registry.

Document Quality

   This is mostly a piece of work that needed to get done but that no one
   had much interest in doing.  Mark took it on and got feedback, but the
   document shepherd can't find any record of discussion in any mailing
   list archives.  Mark brought it to DISPATCH, which raised no interest
   either.

   There was a good amount of discussion on the github issues list, which
   had good representation from the community:
     https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues?q=is:issue label:rfc5988bis

   The bottom line is that the document is ready to go, and any last-call
   discussion will be adequate.  This is a good example of a document for
   which silence  is a reasonable measure of consensus.  The only tricky
   bit is that Section 4.2 is proposing a different model for maintaining
   the registry, and we need to make sure there's good communication with
   IANA on that.

Personnel

  Barry Leiba is the document shepherd.
  Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD.

Protocol Action: 'Web Linking' to Proposed Standa… The IESG