Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05.txt> (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 03/05/2017 08:57, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2017-05-02 21:18, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Review of draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05.txt
>> Reviewer: Carsten Bormann
>> Review result: Ready with a few issues
>>
>> (This is not a complete review, but in its present state might serve
>> to initiate discussion of items relevant to RFC 6690 and thus
>> draft-ietf-core-links-json.)
>>
>> This specification updates RFC 5988.  The objectives for this update
>> are not clearly stated, but it seems to be based on experience with
>> RFC 5988 as well as based on advances possible with the publication of
>> RFC 7230.
>>
>> # Major technical
>>
>> T1: The draft does not take position what should happen when
>> serializations allowed by RFC 5988 but not by the present spec occur,
>> e.g.: ;type=text/plain (would now need to be ;type="text/plain").
>> ...
>
> FWIW, it's allowed in RFC 5988, but there's a five year old erratum 
> about it (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3158>). 
> Unfortunately, the status is "held for document update", not "approved".
The change was not purely in the "oh, this is what we meant" category, 
so I think "held for document update" is fine. The change was 
incorporated in draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05.txt.

> (And yes, there's the orthogonal topic that people are not aware of 
> errata, see my experiment to improve that: 
> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5988.html#header.link>).
>
> Best regards, Julian