|
Not sure what happened, but it seems half my response was eaten in transit… Hi Joe, Thanks for the review, below are our comments: >In section 3, it is stated that an ITSP may use an authentication framework... > > Should this language be stronger and normative? That is, should this be a > SHOULD? Or perhaps this is best left to the document on the capability set > document. As it stands now, it felt like an aside as I read it. Originally, we had this draft in the standards track, but after discussion with the working group chair we decided on decoupling the link type registration from the capability set definition itself. We foresee other use cases for the link
relation not necessarily defined in the capability set documentation and think that any normative information should be defined in the implementation documents rather than this draft, which is more informational. > My nit is that in the example href, should the URL be > https://capserver.ssp1.example.com? Agreed, we will update this in the link relation draft and inform the authors of the other ASAP document to ensure there is parity between examples. Thanks again for taking the time to review and providing your feedback. -- Derek Engi deengi@xxxxxxxxx
From: Derek Engi (deengi) <deengi@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Joe, |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
