cite-as: A Link Relation to Convey a Preferred URI for Referencing
draft-vandesompel-citeas-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-04-16
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-04-07
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-04-05
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-02-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-02-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-02-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-02-26
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-02-26
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-02-25
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to Sent to the RFC Editor from In ISE Review |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Sent request for publication to the RFC Editor |
2019-02-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-02-19
|
04 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-vandesompel-citeas-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-vandesompel-citeas-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. We understand that when this document is sent to us for processing, the only action required of us will be to update the reference associated with the following existing Link Relation Type registration (https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations) to point to the most recent version of this document: Relation Name: cite-as Description: Indicates that the link target is preferred over the link context for the purpose of referencing. Reference: [draft-vandesompel-citeas] Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2019-02-06
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | IETF conflict review initiated - see conflict-review-vandesompel-citeas |
2019-02-06
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Tag AD Followup cleared. |
2019-02-06
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to In ISE Review from Response to Review Needed |
2019-02-06
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | draft-vandesompel-citeas-04 is proposed for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. A web resource is routinely referenced by means of the … draft-vandesompel-citeas-04 is proposed for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. A web resource is routinely referenced by means of the URI with which it is directly accessed. But cases exist where referencing a resource by means of a URI, different than that access URI, is preferred. This specification defines a link relation type that can be used to convey such a preference. This document was first brought to the ISE in April 2018 at version -02. Expert reviews were commissioned from Mark Nottingham, Barry Leibe, Heather Flannagan, and one reviewer who wished to remain anonymous. All provided comments that were addressed by the authors to improve the draft. This document requests IANA for a new link relation type. Mark Nottingham is also one of the Designated Experts for the registry. There remains a small format issue regarding line wraps when an example URI is too long. We hope the RFC Editor will have some advice on this. The reviews were as follows... === Barry Leibe Comments to ISE: 0. Definitely do get a review from MNot. 1. I think there is no conflict with IETF work. 2. That said, I don't agree with the author that existing link relations don't fit. For that matter, I don't think the proposed one does either. The document lays out a number of different use cases that, as I see them, need different handling. It then tries to propose a link relation that handles all cases. More below. 3. Because of (2), I think it would be better to rethink this by separating the use cases. It might well be that different existing link relations take care of what's needed, even if a single one doesn't do for all. This document could be recast as guidance about using certain link relations for certain use cases. 4. I think there's a lot of editorial work needed here. The document seems to go out of its way to use awkward wording to force passive voice where active voice would not be awkward. For example: OLD The link relation type defined in this specification allows to convey to user agents that the reference URI is the preferred URI for referencing. NEW The link relation type defined in this specification allows the web site to tell user agents to use the reference URI, in preference to any other, to reference the web page. END This weird "allows to X" construction is all over the document. === Heather Flanagan Initial impressions: * Interesting and I can see some value. More comments (may be shared with the author) * Abstract will definitely need to be revised; I was unable to figure out what he was talking about until the Introduction. * Might be of interest to point out that the RFC Editor has Info pages (our preferred reference point due to the extended metadata found on those pages) whereas other entities almost always point to the TXT file itself. * I wonder if Herbert has seen STS (https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/sts) and JATS (https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/jats) and considered how this kind of URI might fit in those schema? === Mark Nottingham # Comments for Authors Overall this is a reasonable document. A few things could bear clarification: * I think a reader of "3.3. Preferred Social Identifier" could be confused about the intended usage, and walk away thinking that cite-as is suitable for linking to profiles from *any* social page (e.g., a tweet or facebook article). Any example would help. * In Section 4, cite-as is defined as "A link with the "cite-as" relation type indicates that the link target is preferred over the link context for the purpose of referencing." The term "reference", however, is applicable to *every* link on the Web, so read strictly, this doesn't constrain the link relation's use at all. Some kind of qualification on "referencing" would be helpful. I know that this is gone into in some detail in the referenced blog entries, but many readers will just look at this text in isolation (probably only the first few sentences). * The explanation in Section 5 is difficult to read, and would benefit from a worked example (similar to the blog entry cited in [canonical-blog]). Most readers are going to ask about the relationship with "canonical" specifically. === Reviewer #4 (anonymous) I've glanced through it. These are smart folks and thoughtful people and papers about their ideas are almost certainly worth publishing. However, this one lies near the nexus of a fundamental disagreement about strategy. One way to get/define a persistent identifier is to define things that way (DOIs, URNs, etc.), and the other is to decide that, despite conforming to the syntax for URLs, some strings that look like domain names or URLs are really symbols to be interpreted in some other way or redirected to some other place. I have a fundamental problem with the latter because I see it as a kludge that often involves layer violations and opens up attack vectors. Because I have not followed the efforts and literature associated with the link relation efforts, I'm not appropriate as a detailed reviewer. I don't expect to get the authors from one perspective to change their minds or their text, at least beyond pointing out that other points of view exist. Just a nit, but one I hope you can discuss sooner rather than later. The "Author's Addresses" section is supposedly to contain contact information. We used to require a real address, email address, and usually a phone number of the theory (in the 1980s) that those were more stable than only one. Jon's thinking was that, if one of these became useless, at least one would have multiple handles by which the search for someone could start. Then we started allowing email addresses alone. This document appears to contain only URLs pointing to biographical information and some of those pages do not contain explicit contact information at all. I think this is a bad idea. |
2018-12-18
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-12-18
|
04 | Herbert Van de Sompel | New version available: draft-vandesompel-citeas-04.txt |
2018-12-18
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-18
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Simeon Warner , Herbert Van de Sompel , John Kunze , Geoffrey Bilder , rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, Michael … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Simeon Warner , Herbert Van de Sompel , John Kunze , Geoffrey Bilder , rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, Michael Nelson |
2018-12-18
|
04 | Herbert Van de Sompel | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-07
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Tag Revised I-D Needed set. |
2018-11-07
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to Response to Review Needed from In ISE Review |
2018-07-11
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Notification list changed to Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> |
2018-07-11
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Document shepherd changed to Adrian Farrel |
2018-07-11
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Authors have updated after reviews. ISE needs to check that, hunt for additional reviews, and perform own review |
2018-07-11
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to In ISE Review |
2018-07-11
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2018-07-11
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Stream changed to ISE from None |
2018-06-25
|
03 | Herbert Van de Sompel | New version available: draft-vandesompel-citeas-03.txt |
2018-06-25
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-25
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Herbert Van de Sompel , Simeon Warner , Michael Nelson , John Kunze , Geoffrey Bilder |
2018-06-25
|
03 | Herbert Van de Sompel | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-31
|
02 | Herbert Van de Sompel | New version available: draft-vandesompel-citeas-02.txt |
2018-01-31
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-31
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Herbert Van de Sompel , Simeon Warner , Michael Nelson , John Kunze , Geoffrey Bilder |
2018-01-31
|
02 | Herbert Van de Sompel | Uploaded new revision |
2017-12-14
|
01 | Herbert Van de Sompel | New version available: draft-vandesompel-citeas-01.txt |
2017-12-14
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-12-14
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Herbert Van de Sompel , Simeon Warner , Michael Nelson , John Kunze , Geoffrey Bilder |
2017-12-14
|
01 | Herbert Van de Sompel | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-10
|
00 | (System) | This document now replaces draft-vandesompel-identifier instead of None |
2017-10-10
|
00 | Herbert Van de Sompel | New version available: draft-vandesompel-citeas-00.txt |
2017-10-10
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-10
|
00 | Herbert Van de Sompel | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Herbert Van de Sompel , Simeon Warner , Michael Nelson , John Kunze , Geoffrey Bilder |
2017-10-04
|
00 | Herbert Van de Sompel | Uploaded new revision |