Hi Stewart, Thanks for the review. Responses below. > Minor issues: > I found the IANA considerations confusing. Specifically it looks like > Section 4.1 refers to > https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml > although it does not say so in so many words. It says > This specification updates the Message Header registry entry for "Link" in HTTP [RFC3864] to refer to this document. Are you suggesting that it be updated to say "Permanent Message Header Field Names registry", or something else? > Assuming that to be the case the IANA text in section 4.1 (which copies the text from RFC5688) does not line up column by column with the text in the registry. I assume that > [RFC&rfc.number;] means [This RFC], Yes; already fixed in source. > but do not see where Author/Change control fits in the registry. It's required by the registration template in RFC3864. > Nits/editorial comments: > > In the intro and the abstract the text "a model for indicate the > relationships" is not good grammar. Already fixed in source. Thanks again! -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/