AUTH48-review.txt

Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Date: 2022-07-12, 22:41
To: erik.wilde@dret.net, herbert.van.de.sompel@dans.knaw.nl
CC: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, httpapi-ads@ietf.org, httpapi-chairs@ietf.org, rsalz@akamai.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Authors' Addresses:  We try to avoid using "http://" 
in RFCs unless they are used as specific examples of non-secure HTTP. 
Changing "http://dret.net/netdret/" to "https://dret.net/netdret/" 
yields "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" (Firefox) or "This 
Connection Is Not Private" (Safari).  It appears that the requested
domain name does not match the server's certificate. Should this URL 
be updated to use "https://"?

Original:
 URI:   http://dret.net/netdret/ -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please provide any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->


3) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1 and subsequent:  There are eight instances of
'"linkset" relation type' in running text in this document, but only
the last instance (in Appendix A) uses the "<tt>" element to set it
off with a different font in the .html and .pdf outputs.  For
consistency of style, would you like to use "<tt>" around the other
seven instances? -->


4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3:  Section 15 of RFC 9110 (the published
version of draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics) uses different wording for
error codes 413 and 414 - "413 (Content Too Large)" and "414 (URI
Too Long)", respectively. We have updated the following to match. 

Original:
 Section 15 of HTTP [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] defines error codes
 related to excess communication by the user agent ("413 Request
 Entity Too Large" and "414 Request-URI Too Long"), but no specific
 error codes are defined to indicate that response field content
 exceeds the upper bound that can be handled by the server and thus
 has been truncated. 

Current:
 Section 15 of "HTTP Semantics" [RFC9110] defines error codes related
 to excess communication by the user agent ("413 Content Too Large"
 and "414 URI Too Long"), but no specific error codes are defined to
 indicate that response field content exceeds the upper bound that can
 be handled by the server and thus has been truncated.  

-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1:  In the following, does "ones" refer to subsequent ABNF rules?

Original:
 This document format is nearly identical to the field value of the
 HTTP "Link" header field as defined in Section 3 of [RFC8288], more
 specifically by its ABNF [RFC5234] production rule for "Link" and
 subsequent ones. 

Perhaps:
 This document format is nearly identical to the field value of the
 HTTP "Link" header field as defined in Section 3 of [RFC8288], more
 specifically by its ABNF [RFC5234] production rule for "Link" and
 its subsequent rules. 
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] As Figures 7 through 21 have titles, would you like to
provide titles for Figures 1 through 6?  If yes, please specify.

Original:
 Figure 1
 Figure 2
 Figure 3
 Figure 4
 Figure 5
 Figure 6
 Figure 7: Client HTTP GET request
 Figure 8: Response to HTTP GET includes a set of links
 etc. -->


7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.5:  "allows to" does not parse.  We updated
this sentence as follows.  If this does not preserve your intended
meaning, please provide clarifying text.

Original:
 Limiting the JSON format in
 this way allows to unambiguously round trip between links provided in
 the HTTP "Link" header field, sets of links serialized according to
 the "application/linkset" format, and sets of links serialized
 according to the "application/linkset+json" format.

Currently:
 Limiting the JSON format in
 this way allows unambiguous round trips between links provided in the
 HTTP "Link" header field, sets of links serialized according to the
 "application/linkset" format, and sets of links serialized according
 to the "application/linkset+json" format. -->


8) <!-- [rfced] Sections 7.1 and subsequent:  We changed
<artwork type="http-message"' to '<sourcecode type="http-message"'
per <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>.
Please let us know any concerns.

Also, should Figure 19 in Appendix A be
'<sourcecode type="http-message"' as well? -->


9) <!-- [rfced] Figure 14:  Would you like the ";" (semicolon) lines to
be indented per Figures 8, 10, 12, and 19?  We ask because Figure 14
appears to be an outlier as far as the indentation (or lack thereof)
goes.

Original:
 HTTP/1.1 307 Temporary Redirect
 Date:  Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:03:07 GMT
 Server: nginx
 Link: https://id.gs1.org/01/9506000134352?linkType=all
 ; rel="linkset"
 ; type="application/linkset+json"
 ; profile="https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes"
 Location: https://example.com/risotto-rice-with-mushrooms/

Possibly:
 HTTP/1.1 307 Temporary Redirect
 Date:  Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:03:07 GMT
 Server: nginx
 Link: <https://id.gs1.org/01/9506000134352?linkType=all>
       ; rel="linkset"
       ; type="application/linkset+json"
       ; profile="https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes"
 Location: https://example.com/risotto-rice-with-mushrooms/ -->


10) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.4.2:  We changed
"used in <xref target="Response_pr_at"/>" to "used in Figure 14".
Please let us know any concerns.

Original:
 Note the "profile" parameter for the application/linkset+json media
 type, which has as value the same Profile URI <https://www.gs1.org/
 voc/?show=linktypes> as was used in <xref target="Response_pr_at"/>.

Currently:
 Note the "profile" parameter for the "application/linkset+json" media
 type, which has as its value the same profile URI
 <https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes> as was used in Figure 14. -->


11) <!-- [rfced] Figure 17:  Should the '; rel="profile"' be on a
separate line and indented, per the other examples in this document?

Original:
 Link: https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes; rel="profile"

Possibly:
 Link: <https://www.gs1.org/voc/?show=linktypes>
       ; rel="profile" -->


12) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.2:  These sentences do not parse well.  If the
suggested text is not correct, please clarify.
Note:  We will also ask IANA to update
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/linkset>
so that it matches the updated version of this document.

Original:
 Encoding considerations: Linksets are encoded according to the
 definition of [RFC8288].  The encoding of [RFC8288] is based on
 the general encoding rules of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], with
 the addition of allowing indicating character encoding and
 language for specific parameters as defined by [RFC8187].

Suggested:
 Encoding considerations:  Linksets are encoded according to the
    definitions provided in [RFC8288].  The encoding discussed in
    [RFC8288] is based on the general encoding rules specified by
    HTTP [RFC9110] and allows specific parameters to be extended 
    by the indication of character encoding and language as
    defined by [RFC8187].
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] Normative References, [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116]: According 
to <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/>, "W3C Recommendation 
16 January 2014 superseded 03 November 2020" (which is odd, because the 
latest published version at <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/> is dated 
July 2020).

If the information in Section 6.1 of <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/> 
(JSON-LD 1.1) is still applicable to the citations in this document that 
point to Section 6.8 of the 2014 (JSON-LD 1.0) version, may we update as 
suggested?

Current (Section 4.2, Normative References, and Appendix A):

 This can be achieved by adding
 an appropriate context to the "application/linkset+json"
 serialization using the approach described in Section 6.8 of
 [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116]. 
...
   [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116]
              Sporny, M., Ed., Kellogg, G., Ed., and M. Lanthaler, Ed.,
              "JSON-LD 1.0", W3C Recommendation REC-json-ld-20140116,
              January 2014,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116>.
...
 A set of links rendered according to the JSON serialization defined
 in Section 4.2 can be interpreted as RDF triples by adding a JSON-LD
 context [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116] that maps the JSON keys to
 corresponding Linked Data terms.  And, as per Section 6.8 of
 [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116], when delivering a link set that is
 rendered according to the "application/linkset+json" media type to a
 user agent, a server can convey the availability of such a JSON-LD
 context by using a link with the relation type
 "https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" in the HTTP "Link" header
 field.

Suggested:

 This can be achieved by adding
 an appropriate context to the "application/linkset+json"
 serialization using the approach described in Section 6.1 of
 [W3C.REC-json-ld].
...
 [W3C.REC-json-ld]
            Sporny, M., Ed., Kellogg, G., Ed., and M. Lanthaler, Ed., 
            "JSON-LD 1.1: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data", 
            W3C Consortium Recommendation REC-json-ld, July 2020,
            <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/>.
...
 A set of links rendered according to the JSON serialization defined
 in Section 4.2 can be interpreted as RDF triples by adding a JSON-LD
 context [W3C.REC-json-ld] that maps the JSON keys to corresponding
 Linked Data terms.  And, as per Section 6.1 of [W3C.REC-json-ld],
 when delivering a link set that is rendered according to the
 "application/linkset+json" media type to a user agent, a server can
 convey the availability of such a JSON-LD context by using a link
 with the relation type "https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" in
 the HTTP "Link" header field. 
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] Informative References:  Because the in-text citation
for [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225] in Section 4.2 is general in
nature, we changed the URL so that the latest version will always be
retrieved.  Please let us know any objections.

Original (Section 4.2 and Informative References):
 Appendix A shows an
 example of a possible context that, when added to a JSON
 serialization, allows it to be interpreted as Resource Description
 Framework (RDF) [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225] data.
...
 [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225]
            Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., and M. Lanthaler, "RDF 1.1
            Concepts and Abstract Syntax", World Wide Web Consortium
            Recommendation REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225, 25 February
            2014,
            <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225>.

Currently:
 Appendix A shows an
 example of a possible context that, when added to a JSON
 serialization, allows it to be interpreted as Resource Description
 Framework (RDF) data [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts].
...
   [W3C.REC-rdf11-concepts]
              Cyganiak, R., Ed., Wood, D., Ed., and M. Lanthaler, Ed.,
              "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax", W3C Consortium
              Recommendation REC-rdf11-concepts, February 2014,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/>.
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] Informative References:  After removing Appendix B
("Implementation Status"), RFC 7942 ("Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section") was no longer cited
anywhere in this document.  We removed the reference listing
accordingly.  Please let us know any concerns. -->


16) <!-- [rfced] Appendix A:  As <http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context>
redirects to <https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context>, we changed 
the in-text instances of "http://" to "https://" in the text and in
Figure 19 accordingly.  Please let us know if these updates are
incorrect (i.e., is there a particular reason that this document
uses "http://" instead of "https://"?).

Original:
 And, as per
 [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116] section 6.8 (https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/
 REC-json-ld-20140116/#interpreting-json-as-json-ld), when delivering
 a link set that is rendered according to the "application/
 linkset+json" media type to a user agent, a server can convey the
 availability of such a JSON-LD context by using a link with the
 relation type "http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" in the HTTP
 "Link" header.
...
 In order to obtain the JSON-LD Context conveyed by the server, the
 user agent issues an HTTP GET against the link target of the link
 with the "http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" relation type.
... 
 rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context"

Currently:
 And, as per Section 6.8 of
 [W3C.REC-json-ld-20140116], when delivering a link set that is
 rendered according to the "application/linkset+json" media type to a
 user agent, a server can convey the availability of such a JSON-LD
 context by using a link with the relation type
 "<https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context>" in the HTTP "Link" header
 field.
...
 In order to obtain the JSON-LD Context conveyed by the server, the
 user agent issues an HTTP GET against the link target of the link
 with the "<https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context>" relation type.
...
 rel="https://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld#context" -->


17) <!-- [rfced] Appendix A:

a) We see that the <http://purl.org> entries redirect to
<https://www.dublincore.org> pages (which we see are fairly long in
length and would have to be broken across lines if used in the
figures).  We try to avoid using "http://" in RFCs if the URLs/URIs
redirect to "https://" pages, unless they are used as specific examples
of non-secure HTTP.

Should this topic be further explained in this section, or does the
citation for [DCMI-TERMS] in the paragraph after Figure 19 clarify
this topic sufficiently?

b) We also see that
<https://id.gs1.org/01/09506000149301> redirects to
<https://www.gs1.org/industries/retail/2D-barcodes>.  Please let us
know if any updates are needed regarding this URL. -->


18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
and let us know if any changes are needed. -->


19) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the
following:

a) The following terms were used inconsistently in this document.
We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us know any objections.

 anchor member / "anchor" member

 header / header field 
   (when discussing fields rather than the entire header)

 href member / "href" member

 Link: https://...   /   Link: <https://...>
   (Per published RFCs.  We could not find any instances of
    "Link:" lines that did not have bracketed URLs.)

 Profile URI / profile URI (used generally in running text)
   (per post-6000 published RFCs)

 Web linking model / Web Linking model

b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this
document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.

 HTTP "Link" header field / HTTP Link header field*

 * As RFC 8288 uses the latter form (i.e., HTTP Link header field),
   we suggest removing the quotes.

 JSON-LD context / JSON-LD Context (running text in Appendix A)
   (We see that usage in
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/> is inconsistent
    as well.  No precedent in published RFCs.)

 Web Links (Section 1) / web links (Section 8) -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/lb/jm


On 7/12/22 3:37 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/07/12

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9264.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9264

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9264 (draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10)

Title            : Linkset: Media Types and a Link Relation Type for Link Sets
Author(s)        : E. Wilde, H. Van de Sompel
WG Chair(s)      : Darrel Miller, Rich Salz
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini