Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-core-links-json-07

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 25, 2017, at 23:25, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> OK, let me start typing that errata report then.

Below is a draft errata report.

Is this information correct?
Is it sufficient?

Obviously, this errata report doesn’t by itself answer the important questions raised about links-json, but it might be a useful outcome of this discussion anyway.

Grüße, Carsten



Report Errata for RFC6690

Date:	2017-04-26
Name:	Carsten Bormann
Email:	[e-mail]
Type:	Editorial
Section:	2

Original Text:

   [...] In
   order to convert an HTTP Link Header field to this link format, first
   the "Link:" HTTP header is removed, any linear whitespace (LWS) is
   removed, the header value is converted to UTF-8, and any percent-
   encodings are decoded.

Corrected Text:

   (add after unchanged original text:)

   Note that this percent-decoding damages URIs that percent-encode
   reserved characters (i.e., characters out of ":/?#[]@!$&'()*+,;=",
   not including the double quotes).  Such URIs therefore generally
   cannot be successfully used with RFC 6690 link-format.

Notes:

   Fully percent-decoding URIs before placing them into the
   link-format reduces complexity in processing link-format, but
   creates a limitation on the set of URIs that link-format faithfully
   can represent.  This may not be as widely known as is desirable,
   creating a pitfall for unwitting users of RFC 6990.