Subject: [core] link-format #42 (new): Finalize the link-extensions to define

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:32:24 -0000

#42: Finalize the link-extensions to define

 The final link-extensions to be defined in this draft need to be locked
 down.

 Extensions to consider for removal:

 - sh "Short URL": Is this really in use? So far it seems people instead
 just make short URLs in the first place. Suggestion to remove.

 Extensions to consider for addition:

 - obs "Observation flag": A link-extension (with no value part) that when
 present indicates that this resource supports observation.

 - size "Size estimate": Indicates the estimated size for larger resources
 that will likely require block transfer.

 NOTE: link-extensions are exactly that, extensions. This is just small
 number defines for interoperability. Any other standard of vendor using
 this specification can extend the link-format with attributes of their
 own.

-- 
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  zach@…              |       Owner:  zach@…            
     Type:  enhancement         |      Status:  new               
 Priority:  major               |   Milestone:                    
Component:  link-format         |     Version:                    
 Severity:  -                   |    Keywords:                    
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/42>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:19:46 -0600

> just make short URLs in the first place. Suggestion to remove.

+1 

> present indicates that this resource supports observation.

seems reasonable 

> that will likely require block transfer.

It might be better to have a "max-size" that mean this resource will never be larger than this size.

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:56:00 -0000

Comment(by zach@…):

 This ticket was discussed in Beijing and on the mailing list ticket
 thread. Summary:

 - "sh" should be dropped, also because it does not work with RFC5988.

 - "obs" and "sz" were found to be useful, and should be added.

 - "n" should be more clearly defined for use only as a semantic name, and
 not as a user readable title. "title" should be recommended for such use.
 Also clarify that this is not to hold a link to some document (URL), but
 may include a URI or URN.

 - "d" should be more clearly defined for use as a interface description
 identifier. It is not to be used as a link to a document to be fetched
 (URL), but rather as a URI or URN.

 - "id" is being considered for removal. It is currently not clear if there
 is enough interest for using it for indicating a universal indentifier
 (e.g. UUID or XRI) for the resource. In Beijing the idea of using it as a
 local index was suggested.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/42#comment:1>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>