Hi Julian,
> On 17 May 2023, at 1:22 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> below some feedback... (and sorry for not paying attention earlier in WGLC).
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> > This specification defines a HTTP header field [HTTP] for conveying
> templates for links in the headers of a HTTP message. It is
> complimentary to the Link header field defined in Section 3 of
> [WEB-LINKING], which carries links directly.
>
> Is use in a trailer completely implausible?
No, but Link is defined as a header, and there haven't been requests to make it available as a trailer. While we could allow both, it would require applications using Link to disambiguate whether it's supported in trailers in their particular case, and we know that many applications won't bother.
> 2. The Link-Template Header Field
>
> > Link-Template: "/{username}"; rel="https://example.org/rel/user";
>
> It took me a moment to realize that rel uses a URI, not a registered
> link relation. That's IMHO "advanced" use of link relations, so maybe
> not totally suitable for the first example.
Fair call; updated in source.
> > Parameters on a templated link have identical semantics to those of a
> Link header field. This includes (but is not limited to) the use of the
> "rel" parameter to convey the relation type, the "anchor" parameter to
> modify the context IRI, and so on. Parameter values MUST be Strings.
>
> Why are parameters limited to strings; just for consistency with "Link"?
> Anyway, RFC 8288 defines "title*", and the "Display Strings" that we may
> or may not get in SFBIS could be used here. I would prefer to wait for
> the outcome of that discussion before proceeding here.
I tend to agree; let's see what happens. Note that display strings are not functionally equivalent to that encoding -- so we'll have to figure out whether that's important.
> > Link-Template: </books/{book_id}/author>;
> rel="author" anchor="#{book_id}"
>
> This needs to use DQUOTE instead of angle brackets.
Fixed.
> > Implementations MUST support all levels of template defined by
> [URI-TEMPLATE] in both the rel and anchor parameters.
>
> In *rel*? So use an URI template for the actual link relation??? What's
> the use case for that?
Ah -- that's a typo; the intent was the link and the anchor, not rel. Fixed (and good catch).
> 2.1 var-base
>
> This mechanism assumes that all variables come from the same base. Is
> that assumption justified? (Not sure myself)
Possibly not, but this is very anticipatory, so a simple mechanism seemed best.
> 4. IANA Considerations
>
> I'd make that a proper list instead of artwork (yes, nitpicking here)
Sure.
> 5. Normative References
>
> [HTTP] should use RFC 9110.
Done - we started working on this one a while back :)
Cheers and thanks for the review,
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
