Web Linking
draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-08

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2017-08-01 for -07)
No email
send info
ART and others are more qualified to make useful determinations here, so I'll restrict myself to nits. :-P

1: The Note to Readers should have an "RFC Editor, please remove" tag.

2: Section 2: " A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "_link context_ has a  _link relation type_ resource at _link target_, which has _targetattributes_". If possible, it would be really helpful to have an example here - this may be clear to those schooled in the arts, but I found this hard to parse, and required much flipping back and forth to understand.

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2017-08-14)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my discuss.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -07)
No email
send info

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -07)
No email
send info

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-08-02 for -07)
No email
send info
- Since this seems to be the week for this recurring controversy: I agree with Mirja that the abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5988.

2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 seem to entirely contain IANA considerations. It seems a bit strange to specify them here and reference them from the IANA section. (I can accept this as a stylistic choice, but it creates additional work for anyone who came to this  draft primarily to learn the IANA bits.)

- 2.1.1.1: "The expert(s) MAY define additional fields to be collected in the
registry."
How should they go about doing that?

- 2.1.1.2: It seems like a mild abuse of the spirit of 2119 to put MUST and SHOULD requirements on the designated experts.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -07)
No email
send info

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-08-02 for -07)
No email
send info
It would be good to include a reference to RFC7525 in the security considerations section when talking about using TLS.

Thanks.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-07-28 for -07)
No email
send info
Processing comments:
- The abstract should say that this document obsoletes RFC5988
- I don’t think we need to keep the pre-5378 disclaimer given Mark the only author of rfc5988 as well

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -07)
No email
send info

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -07)
No email
send info

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -07)
No email
send info