Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format
RFC 6690

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2012-03-11 for -11)
No email
send info
This is a well written document, thank you for doing it. I have a small problem with the ABNF, however, see below for the details. Perhaps this video also illustrates my point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LbK-g8tKnoc

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2012-06-01)
No email
send info
All DISCUSSes and comments have been addressed.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -11)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -11)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -11)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -11)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-09 for -11)
No email
send info
Only stylistic nits. Otherwise no problems.

I find the questions in section 1.1 a poor writing style and suggest they be removed.

The first sentence of section 6: "This document needs the same security considerations...". Please change "needs" to "has".

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-12 for -11)
No email
send info
One minor editorial suggestion: in the Introduction,
RFC 4919 might be a better general reference for
"6LoWPAN" than RFC 4944.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -11)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -11)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-14 for -11)
No email
send info
s3.2 Any chance for an actual size for the reasonable size limit?

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-11 for -11)
No email
send info
- Richard Barnes' secdir review suggested text for section 6 about
authorization that the author seems to like, so this is just to note
that until its fixed.

- I'd also suggest adding the following to Richard's suggest text:
"While such servers might not return all links to all requesters, not
providing the link does not, by itsef, control access to the relevant
resource - a bad actor could know or guess the right URIs."

- I'd also suggest adding something about servers that might tell
lies to feed bad data to clients, e.g. "Servers can lie about the
resources available. If it is important for a client to only get
information from a known source, then that source needs to be
authenticated."

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -11)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -11)
No email
send info