On Apr 25, 2017, at 23:25, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, let me start typing that errata report then. Below is a draft errata report. Is this information correct? Is it sufficient? Obviously, this errata report doesn’t by itself answer the important questions raised about links-json, but it might be a useful outcome of this discussion anyway. Grüße, Carsten Report Errata for RFC6690 Date: 2017-04-26 Name: Carsten Bormann Email: cabo@xxxxxxx Type: Editorial Section: 2 Original Text: [...] In order to convert an HTTP Link Header field to this link format, first the "Link:" HTTP header is removed, any linear whitespace (LWS) is removed, the header value is converted to UTF-8, and any percent- encodings are decoded. Corrected Text: (add after unchanged original text:) Note that this percent-decoding damages URIs that percent-encode reserved characters (i.e., characters out of ":/?#[]@!$&'()*+,;=", not including the double quotes). Such URIs therefore generally cannot be successfully used with RFC 6690 link-format. Notes: Fully percent-decoding URIs before placing them into the link-format reduces complexity in processing link-format, but creates a limitation on the set of URIs that link-format faithfully can represent. This may not be as widely known as is desirable, creating a pitfall for unwitting users of RFC 6990.