I was recently made aware of this draft. A specification should not opt itself into the use of the link relation registry unless it's actually using link relations -- otherwise, there's going to be weird overlaps / misalignments. >From a brief glance, this spec is *not* defining itself as a serialisation of links in the 8288 sense -- e.g., there's no link context, no mention of target attributes, etc. Basically, it needs to describe itself in terms of the model defined in [Section 2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8288.html#section-2). Two alternative paths forward would address this concern: 1) Define this as a serialisation of 8288 links 2) Use a separate registry Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
