From mca@amundsen.com Mon Aug 1 08:32:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C74021F8869 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yH50aBRTIYqi for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985F911E80DF for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so1490065wyj.31 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:32:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.230.198 with SMTP id j48mr859843weq.1.1312212775538; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.167.17 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:32:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 11:32:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VXAtzX-TkQ-mFlnxtrU7V9BBxog Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [link-relations] Example of App Data for Link Relations X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:32:53 -0000 I've been working through the Web Linking RFC (5988) and am not clear on how Link Relation Application Data[1] actually *looks* in an implementation. I do not see any registered App Data[2] items and have not yet found an illustration of one anywhere online. I am especially interested in any discussion threads that lead to the creation of the App Data registry. Is App Data really just a registered link-extension[3]? And can this link-extension be applied to any *existing* Link Relation Type - even one that has not pre-defined the use of link-extensions? As an example, given the following App Data registration: - Application Name: foo - Description: The foo application is used to process all baz interactions. - Default: none. Does the above registration result in the following possible Link Relation? rel="related;foo=bar" or rel="alternate;foo=bar" etc. Thanks in advance for any comments, examples, pointers to content that explains this aspect of RFC5988. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.3 [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml#link-relations-2 [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5 mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org From julian.reschke@gmx.de Mon Aug 1 15:17:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B141F0C4E for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:17:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.242 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.643, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pA8CtaTAJlJI for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EC8D21F0C4C for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Aug 2011 22:17:30 -0000 Received: from p508FDB9A.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.219.154] by mail.gmx.net (mp065) with SMTP; 02 Aug 2011 00:17:30 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/3HpZGoZn3/v/kb+rfrz4NHLCoXgJyaK8e4vwt+g gXbaP0VvGeWJkL Message-ID: <4E3725F7.90208@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:17:27 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Example of App Data for Link Relations X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:17:30 -0000 On 2011-08-01 17:32, mike amundsen wrote: > I've been working through the Web Linking RFC (5988) and am not clear > on how Link Relation Application Data[1] actually *looks* in an > implementation. I do not see any registered App Data[2] items and have > not yet found an illustration of one anywhere online. I am especially > interested in any discussion threads that lead to the creation of the > App Data registry. The use case that was on the table was HTML5, which attaches two flags to each relation. It was argued that the registry must be able to store those, and that it must be machine-readable so that validators can self-update. > Is App Data really just a registered link-extension[3]? And can this No. > link-extension be applied to any *existing* Link Relation Type - even > one that has not pre-defined the use of link-extensions? > > As an example, given the following App Data registration: > - Application Name: foo > - Description: The foo application is used to process all baz interactions. > - Default: none. Bad example :-) > Does the above registration result in the following possible Link Relation? > > rel="related;foo=bar" > or > rel="alternate;foo=bar" > etc. No. Application data is not about parameters on the wire. > Thanks in advance for any comments, examples, pointers to content that > explains this aspect of RFC5988. > ... You may want to look at . In the end this wasn't used as the HTML WG for now decided to go somewhere else. Best regards, Julian From mca@amundsen.com Mon Aug 1 17:14:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9E721F8865 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:14:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u4vfpM7W6Ty6 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6B121F8564 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so1815125wyj.31 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:12:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.153.146 with SMTP id f18mr35477wek.3.1312243979083; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.167.17 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:12:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3725F7.90208@gmx.de> References: <4E3725F7.90208@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 20:12:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: auKmKy8S37_IGK8lyuG7IBAjP3s Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Example of App Data for Link Relations X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:14:33 -0000 On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 18:17, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-08-01 17:32, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> I've been working through the Web Linking RFC (5988) and am not clear >> on how Link Relation Application Data[1] actually *looks* in an >> implementation. I do not see any registered App Data[2] items and have >> not yet found an illustration of one anywhere online. I am especially >> interested in any discussion threads that lead to the creation of the >> App Data registry. > > The use case that was on the table was HTML5, which attaches two flags to > each relation. It was argued that the registry must be able to store those, > and that it must be machine-readable so that validators can self-update. Understood. > >> Is App Data really just a registered link-extension[3]? And can this > > No. Got it. > >> link-extension be applied to any *existing* Link Relation Type - even >> one that has not pre-defined the use of link-extensions? >> >> As an example, given the following App Data registration: >> - Application Name: foo >> - Description: The foo application is used to process all baz >> interactions. >> - Default: none. > > Bad example :-) Ok. > >> Does the above registration result in the following possible Link >> Relation? >> >> rel="related;foo=bar" >> or >> rel="alternate;foo=bar" >> etc. > > No. Application data is not about parameters on the wire. Aha! first time i've seen that in print. > >> Thanks in advance for any comments, examples, pointers to content that >> explains this aspect of RFC5988. >> ... > > You may want to look at > . > In the end this wasn't used as the HTML WG for now decided to go somewhere > else. I'd read this thread a couple times and it didn't really "help me" since I had missed the point that App Data is not about the wire, just the documentation. > > Best regards, Julian > Thanks. From mca@amundsen.com Fri Aug 5 17:58:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E6A11E807E for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lGG0+r4lOenr for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF8A11E807B for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so6923wwf.13 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.134.82 with SMTP id r60mr1119042wei.13.1312592348416; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.157.143 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:59:08 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HGbDCXgcj5MXQh7ZWiVrxqlo-7M Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [link-relations] Posted two new Link Relation Types to Paramsr.us X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:58:54 -0000 I made two new entries at the web site today: "collection"[1] "item"[2] I think I've submitted properly formatted requests; feel free to straighten me out accordingly. I look forward to feedback and suggestions. BTW - When I am logged into the site, the "Your Requests" link returns not just these two new items, but several other entries that I do not recall adding (issue5, 14, 19, and 23). Cheers! - Mike [1] http://paramsr.us/tracker/issue26 [2] http://paramsr.us/tracker/issue27 mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org From mca@amundsen.com Fri Aug 5 18:55:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A79121F86B6 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:55:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QAgvFYUNeusC for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCE221F8680 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so1698249wyg.31 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:56:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.68.131 with SMTP id l3mr1118981wed.43.1312595760298; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.157.143 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:56:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <232DADB0-FC8A-407F-A151-38BF9B2CBF5D@mnot.net> References: <232DADB0-FC8A-407F-A151-38BF9B2CBF5D@mnot.net> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:56:00 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UdXLDIyf0H3RoLt_KhPNuOyK97E Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [link-relations] Looking for some general guidance.... X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:55:46 -0000 (Following up on a previous thread...) I've had some valuable interaction w/ Tantek and the Microformats group regarding Link Relation Types. I've also started an application for two link relation types via the paramsr.us tracker. I'm logging my observations and notes here: http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/ Feel free to comment/correct/suggest as you see fit. Thanks. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:49, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 08/07/2011, at 4:40 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> Thanks for the link, I didn't know >> that there is an issue tracker for pending relation requests. > > > I'm hoping that we can eventually get rid of paramsr.us, but clarifying a= nd simplifying the RFC (yes, there's already been discussion of bis) and ma= king some corresponding changes in both the registration procedure and the = interface at IANA. > > More info soo, but input (as always) welcome. > > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham =A0 http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > From julian.reschke@gmx.de Fri Aug 5 23:50:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5013311E807C for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:50:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ijvFrWByj0m for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0274411E807B for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Aug 2011 06:50:24 -0000 Received: from p508FCEA5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.206.165] by mail.gmx.net (mp066) with SMTP; 06 Aug 2011 08:50:24 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18U6zkpz70UG3ijp9npQqmkhM5zpDM4CLzcAAoqkt i+i8NZFWSYqdO7 Message-ID: <4E3CE42B.7060407@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:50:19 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Posted two new Link Relation Types to Paramsr.us X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 06:50:07 -0000 On 2011-08-06 02:59, mike amundsen wrote: > I made two new entries at the web site today: > > "collection"[1] > "item"[2] > > I think I've submitted properly formatted requests; feel free to > straighten me out accordingly. I look forward to feedback and > suggestions. > > BTW - When I am logged into the site, the "Your Requests" link returns > not just these two new items, but several other entries that I do not > recall adding (issue5, 14, 19, and 23). > > Cheers! > - Mike Mike, the actual procedure is to send the request here to this mailing list; see . Best regards, Julian From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 00:27:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBFF21F86E0 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:27:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cu4O58VnfWDg for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F47921F874B for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so81838fxe.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:27:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.64.80 with SMTP id d16mr4124788fai.86.1312615641754; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.223.121.212 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:27:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3CE42B.7060407@gmx.de> References: <4E3CE42B.7060407@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 03:27:21 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yrL71qEkpfOj8iQSbEvDS7xKyGI Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [link-relations] Posted two new Link Relation Types to Paramsr.us X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:27:05 -0000 huh... Was misled by step 3 on this page: http://paramsr.us/link-relation-types/ will post directly to this list shortly. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 02:50, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-08-06 02:59, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> I made two new entries at the web site today: >> >> "collection"[1] >> "item"[2] >> >> I think I've submitted properly formatted requests; feel free to >> straighten me out accordingly. =A0I look forward to feedback and >> suggestions. >> >> BTW - When I am logged into the site, the "Your Requests" link returns >> not just these two new items, but several other entries that I do not >> recall adding (issue5, 14, 19, and 23). >> >> Cheers! >> - Mike > > Mike, > > the actual procedure is to send the request here to this mailing list; se= e > . > > Best regards, Julian > From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 00:29:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C596621F8760 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aikqb3aZh9Io for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AD821F875E for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so83357fxe.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:30:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.13.194 with SMTP id d2mr1394441faa.67.1312615807968; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.223.121.212 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 03:30:07 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vmPGI6omWpu7JEjy6VDu0HaBxts Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:29:49 -0000 Relation Name: collection Description: The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which the context IRI is a member. References: http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations Notes: Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") Application Data: None mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 00:31:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BB621F8770 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:31:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0YX+H5oZow34 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B21221F876F for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so84175fxe.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.97.134 with SMTP id l6mr4194177fan.10.1312615903363; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.223.121.212 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 03:31:43 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EeaSJG9lYucVoCoU_fAfHEa5Qzo Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: item X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:31:25 -0000 Relation Name: item Description: The target IRI points to a resource that is a member of a collection represented by the context IRI. References: http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations Notes: Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. Application Data: None mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sat Aug 6 00:54:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1D721F8678 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:54:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.509, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yAOwgQ1mHaQI for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 524A021F8666 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 00:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Aug 2011 07:55:10 -0000 Received: from p508FCEA5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.206.165] by mail.gmx.net (mp009) with SMTP; 06 Aug 2011 09:55:10 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+7++osVUG7jwCSEyfPhXfhCW8mQ6n21BHF0jHOZ6 sqTzU0qplTtSGp Message-ID: <4E3CF35B.7090406@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 09:55:07 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CE42B.7060407@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Posted two new Link Relation Types to Paramsr.us X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:54:54 -0000 On 2011-08-06 09:27, mike amundsen wrote: > huh... > > Was misled by step 3 on this page: > http://paramsr.us/link-relation-types/ > > will post directly to this list shortly. > ... Actually, you weren't misled. It just doesn't seem to work :-( From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sat Aug 6 01:00:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36A921F86DF for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:00:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.085 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.486, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4Oqbvaaicbn for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C471021F87F0 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Aug 2011 08:00:23 -0000 Received: from p508FCEA5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.206.165] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 06 Aug 2011 10:00:23 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX192NU5kovp2qfwkR3mdI6TgZvoxM0rfJUjn2fcGbA IEW8VHyVfzhpNZ Message-ID: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 10:00:19 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:00:06 -0000 On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote: > Relation Name: > collection > > Description: > The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which > the context IRI is a member. > > References: > http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values > http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations > http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations > > Notes: > Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. > The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above > ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") > > Application Data: > None A few questions: Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do they share the same space of names? Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or something like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding) Finally: > http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations > http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations It would be great if there was a single document defining the link relation independently of a specific media type. Best regards, Julian From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 01:14:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A9D21F883A for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:14:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cEkQZJPkr7Bh for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264C921F8834 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so1810283wyg.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:14:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.68.131 with SMTP id l3mr1338057wed.43.1312618494751; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.157.143 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:14:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 04:14:54 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QndCbkZqzsytm0sKQjIzKuvbmOY Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:14:38 -0000 On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> Relation Name: >> collection >> >> Description: >> The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which >> the context =A0IRI is a member. >> >> References: >> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >> >> Notes: >> Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. >> The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above >> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") >> >> Application Data: >> None > > A few questions: > > Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do the= y > share the same space of names? Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"? > > Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or somethin= g > like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding) yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend the nam= e. > > Finally: > >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations > > It would be great if there was a single document defining the link relati= on > independently of a specific media type. I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations: http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/ I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if that is the preferred approach. > > Best regards, Julian > Thanks for the feedback. From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sat Aug 6 01:25:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B5821F8799 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:25:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.062 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.463, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XZ2WCl80ENoi for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 244FC21F850B for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Aug 2011 08:25:17 -0000 Received: from p508FCEA5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.206.165] by mail.gmx.net (mp059) with SMTP; 06 Aug 2011 10:25:17 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19C+yEZ8EJCh29/Uvlpv0xxIj4oyhLabs7xWKZtmd TW/Jda3G6eFsZI Message-ID: <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 10:25:09 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:25:03 -0000 On 2011-08-06 10:14, mike amundsen wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote: >>> >>> Relation Name: >>> collection >>> >>> Description: >>> The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which >>> the context IRI is a member. >>> >>> References: >>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values >>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>> >>> Notes: >>> Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. >>> The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above >>> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") >>> >>> Application Data: >>> None >> >> A few questions: >> >> Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do they >> share the same space of names? > Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"? I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's element is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header field. >> Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or something >> like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding) > yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend the name. > >> >> Finally: >> >>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >> >> It would be great if there was a single document defining the link relation >> independently of a specific media type. > I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations: > http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/ > > I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if > that is the preferred approach. That might be good; but before that we probably should figure out first where this document should live -- RFC 5988 requests "specification required", which in IETF-speak means: Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible. When used, Specification Required also implies use of a Designated Expert, who will review the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow interoperable implementations. The intention behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also cover the case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified person to perform such a review. In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. Any chance you could put the stuff into an Internet Draft? Template: . Best regards, Julian From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 01:30:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AC421F87C6 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:30:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cu+w2a3J8nVS for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7950921F8799 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so110749wwf.13 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:30:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.86.17 with SMTP id v17mr2703707wee.13.1312619452149; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.157.143 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:30:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 04:30:51 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1mFPsJIB4jJ22Idod1bjM3CdRlY Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:30:35 -0000 > I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's elemen= t > is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header > field. Well, I really can't answer that Q. I included OpenSearch since it _does_ use the same word as a rel value. > In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. Both values are logged here: http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#non_HTML_rel_values mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:25, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-08-06 10:14, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke >> =A0wrote: >>> >>> On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote: >>>> >>>> Relation Name: >>>> collection >>>> >>>> Description: >>>> The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which >>>> the context =A0IRI is a member. >>>> >>>> References: >>>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values >>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>>> >>>> Notes: >>>> Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. >>>> The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above >>>> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") >>>> >>>> Application Data: >>>> None >>> >>> A few questions: >>> >>> Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do >>> they >>> share the same space of names? >> >> Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"? > > I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's elemen= t > is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header > field. > >>> Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or >>> something >>> like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding) >> >> yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend the >> name. >> >>> >>> Finally: >>> >>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>> >>> It would be great if there was a single document defining the link >>> relation >>> independently of a specific media type. >> >> I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations: >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/ >> >> I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if >> that is the preferred approach. > > That might be good; but before that we probably should figure out first > where this document should live =A0-- RFC 5988 requests "specification > required", which in IETF-speak means: > > =A0 =A0 =A0Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0documented in a permanent and readily available pu= blic > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0specification, in sufficient detail so that intero= perability > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0between independent implementations is possible. = =A0When used, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Specification Required also implies use of a Desig= nated > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Expert, who will review the public specification a= nd > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0interoperable implementations. =A0The intention be= hind > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"permanent and readily available" is that a docume= nt can > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0reasonably be expected to be findable and retrieva= ble long > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0after IANA assignment of the requested value. =A0P= ublication > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requ= irement, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0but Specification Required is intended to also cov= er the > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0case of a document published outside of the RFC pa= th. =A0For > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is = expected > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0to provide the necessary review for interoperabili= ty, though > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-q= ualified > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0person to perform such a review. > > In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. > > Any chance you could put the stuff into an Internet Draft? Template: > . > > Best regards, Julian > From evnikita2@gmail.com Sat Aug 6 01:41:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AF521F8844 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:41:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.342 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YD5A2V-NKqmL for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174B521F883A for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so127335fxe.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:42:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PUjFge40wLnut2yOAZFugQyOJqhcLKclvPZwBlI+OUA=; b=tscRVK4c9uAapRacqXHoVyJZ8h2HsMusGBO6eCYqEEs7SDAY4UQLDi0HnrwBdfzNnH wcZ+hwJiKTU32xSTj974tLxPLMB7QQksTxgukuf1v3Ns6k3eq8LcQx6BTaA73LlrH1qN jGBsyVE72ZNU7jvQA4VKVOVOpGkrWWR5689xw= Received: by 10.223.72.80 with SMTP id l16mr4239100faj.33.1312620133256; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f27sm2533528fak.31.2011.08.06.01.42.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:42:50 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: link-relations@ietf.org References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:41:55 -0000 06.08.2011 11:30, mike amundsen wrote: > >> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's element >> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header >> field. > > Well, I really can't answer that Q. I included OpenSearch since it > _does_ use the same word as a rel value. > > >> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. > > Both values are logged here: > http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#non_HTML_rel_values Mike, This link you point to here and below (I mean http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/) cannot be considered to be fine for RFC 5226 'Specification Required'. I agree here with Julian that writing the Internet-Draft should be sufficient to perform registration; the template written by Julian is perfect to be used here. Mykyta > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 > http://restfest.org > > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:25, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2011-08-06 10:14, mike amundsen wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke >>> wrote: >>>> On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>> Relation Name: >>>>> collection >>>>> >>>>> Description: >>>>> The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which >>>>> the context IRI is a member. >>>>> >>>>> References: >>>>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values >>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>>>> >>>>> Notes: >>>>> Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. >>>>> The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above >>>>> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") >>>>> >>>>> Application Data: >>>>> None >>>> A few questions: >>>> >>>> Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do >>>> they >>>> share the same space of names? >>> Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"? >> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's element >> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header >> field. >> >>>> Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or >>>> something >>>> like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding) >>> yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend the >>> name. >>> >>>> Finally: >>>> >>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>>> It would be great if there was a single document defining the link >>>> relation >>>> independently of a specific media type. >>> I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations: >>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/ >>> >>> I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if >>> that is the preferred approach. >> That might be good; but before that we probably should figure out first >> where this document should live -- RFC 5988 requests "specification >> required", which in IETF-speak means: >> >> Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be >> documented in a permanent and readily available public >> specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability >> between independent implementations is possible. When used, >> Specification Required also implies use of a Designated >> Expert, who will review the public specification and >> evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow >> interoperable implementations. The intention behind >> "permanent and readily available" is that a document can >> reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long >> after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication >> of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, >> but Specification Required is intended to also cover the >> case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For >> RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected >> to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though >> the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified >> person to perform such a review. >> >> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. >> >> Any chance you could put the stuff into an Internet Draft? Template: >> . >> >> Best regards, Julian >> > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 02:02:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9889421F85F1 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:02:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qw0iv97ORQRM for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBA521F85EE for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so1828068wyg.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:03:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.157.135 with SMTP id o7mr1299724wek.28.1312621384568; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.157.143 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:03:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 05:03:04 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vvMWQcWz8_y1KQUB0C5X50F_iME Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 09:02:47 -0000 Mykyta: Understood. I will work up the I-D document(s) this weekend and update my application. Should I write an I-D for each link rel type? or is it appropriate to include both link rels in a single I-D? mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:42, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrot= e: > 06.08.2011 11:30, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> >>> >>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's >>> =A0element >>> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link heade= r >>> field. >> >> >> Well, I really can't answer that Q. I included OpenSearch since it >> _does_ use the same word as a rel value. >> >> >>> >>> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. >> >> >> Both values are logged here: >> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#non_HTML_rel_values > > Mike, > > This link you point to here and below (I mean > http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/) cannot be > considered to be fine for RFC 5226 'Specification Required'. =A0I agree h= ere > with Julian that writing the Internet-Draft should be sufficient to perfo= rm > registration; the template written by Julian is perfect to be used here. > > Mykyta > >> >> mca >> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >> http://twitter.com@mamund >> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >> >> >> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >> http://restfest.org >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:25, Julian Reschke >> =A0wrote: >>> >>> On 2011-08-06 10:14, mike amundsen wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke >>>> =A0wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Relation Name: >>>>>> collection >>>>>> >>>>>> Description: >>>>>> The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which >>>>>> the context =A0IRI is a member. >>>>>> >>>>>> References: >>>>>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_valu= es >>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>>>>> >>>>>> Notes: >>>>>> Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. >>>>>> The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above >>>>>> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") >>>>>> >>>>>> Application Data: >>>>>> None >>>>> >>>>> A few questions: >>>>> >>>>> Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do >>>>> they >>>>> share the same space of names? >>>> >>>> Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"? >>> >>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's >>> =A0element >>> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link heade= r >>> field. >>> >>>>> Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or >>>>> something >>>>> like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding) >>>> >>>> yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend th= e >>>> name. >>>> >>>>> Finally: >>>>> >>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>>>> >>>>> It would be great if there was a single document defining the link >>>>> relation >>>>> independently of a specific media type. >>>> >>>> I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations: >>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/ >>>> >>>> I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if >>>> that is the preferred approach. >>> >>> That might be good; but before that we probably should figure out first >>> where this document should live =A0-- RFC 5988 requests "specification >>> required", which in IETF-speak means: >>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0documented in a permanent and readily available = public >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0specification, in sufficient detail so that inte= roperability >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0between independent implementations is possible.= =A0When used, >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Specification Required also implies use of a Des= ignated >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Expert, who will review the public specification= and >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to all= ow >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0interoperable implementations. =A0The intention = behind >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"permanent and readily available" is that a docu= ment can >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0reasonably be expected to be findable and retrie= vable long >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0after IANA assignment of the requested value. = =A0Publication >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this re= quirement, >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0but Specification Required is intended to also c= over the >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0case of a document published outside of the RFC = path. =A0For >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0RFC publication, the normal RFC review process i= s expected >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0to provide the necessary review for interoperabi= lity, though >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0the Designated Expert may be a particularly well= -qualified >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0person to perform such a review. >>> >>> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. >>> >>> Any chance you could put the stuff into an Internet Draft? Template: >>> >>> . >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >> > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From evnikita2@gmail.com Sat Aug 6 02:05:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51AB921F8829 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:05:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.344 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uVbVRJt1Rvls for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6005521F8828 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so142049fxe.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:05:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hv4Nys06nIthFNSqfByIVZPlsxcW4UCW4qll7mRv7/U=; b=QHiM/KrDwSmQVzUnIIren7d+bhmAndIC4BjRxhLV2RPI6enHyYYUVvJI86WsN4EftB fP9f4YB6G0rPDautBss+1QH/Iu7Ae2oUErwgMBJeEzv7CIdmIuscDgsKX0PKCsQaEcgA 3klUkDRRim62e35V/hL+/+1l+tEIPeZ6zx2e8= Received: by 10.223.134.88 with SMTP id i24mr4246640fat.68.1312621536424; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o18sm2542706fal.47.2011.08.06.02.05.34 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E3D0406.40402@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:06:14 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 09:05:21 -0000 06.08.2011 12:03, mike amundsen wrote: > Mykyta: > > Understood. I will work up the I-D document(s) this weekend and update > my application. > > Should I write an I-D for each link rel type? or is it appropriate to > include both link rels in a single I-D? There is no problem to place both rel types specifications in one I-D. Mykyta > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 > http://restfest.org > > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:42, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> 06.08.2011 11:30, mike amundsen wrote: >>> >>>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's >>>> element >>>> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header >>>> field. >>> >>> Well, I really can't answer that Q. I included OpenSearch since it >>> _does_ use the same word as a rel value. >>> >>> >>>> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. >>> >>> Both values are logged here: >>> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#non_HTML_rel_values >> Mike, >> >> This link you point to here and below (I mean >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/) cannot be >> considered to be fine for RFC 5226 'Specification Required'. I agree here >> with Julian that writing the Internet-Draft should be sufficient to perform >> registration; the template written by Julian is perfect to be used here. >> >> Mykyta >> >>> mca >>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>> >>> >>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >>> http://restfest.org >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:25, Julian Reschke >>> wrote: >>>> On 2011-08-06 10:14, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>>>> Relation Name: >>>>>>> collection >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Description: >>>>>>> The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which >>>>>>> the context IRI is a member. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> References: >>>>>>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values >>>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Notes: >>>>>>> Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values. >>>>>>> The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above >>>>>>> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.") >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Application Data: >>>>>>> None >>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do >>>>>> they >>>>>> share the same space of names? >>>>> Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"? >>>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's >>>> element >>>> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header >>>> field. >>>> >>>>>> Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or >>>>>> something >>>>>> like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding) >>>>> yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend the >>>>> name. >>>>> >>>>>> Finally: >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations >>>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations >>>>>> It would be great if there was a single document defining the link >>>>>> relation >>>>>> independently of a specific media type. >>>>> I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations: >>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/ >>>>> >>>>> I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if >>>>> that is the preferred approach. >>>> That might be good; but before that we probably should figure out first >>>> where this document should live -- RFC 5988 requests "specification >>>> required", which in IETF-speak means: >>>> >>>> Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be >>>> documented in a permanent and readily available public >>>> specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability >>>> between independent implementations is possible. When used, >>>> Specification Required also implies use of a Designated >>>> Expert, who will review the public specification and >>>> evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow >>>> interoperable implementations. The intention behind >>>> "permanent and readily available" is that a document can >>>> reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long >>>> after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication >>>> of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, >>>> but Specification Required is intended to also cover the >>>> case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For >>>> RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected >>>> to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though >>>> the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified >>>> person to perform such a review. >>>> >>>> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains. >>>> >>>> Any chance you could put the stuff into an Internet Draft? Template: >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> Best regards, Julian >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> link-relations mailing list >>> link-relations@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >> From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sat Aug 6 02:41:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B53D21F8888 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:41:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0yrP4WFsacS6 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C30821F886C for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Aug 2011 09:41:42 -0000 Received: from p508FCEA5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.206.165] by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 06 Aug 2011 11:41:42 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18790okrQg70/fqxaGJ0F2fNMW0KrW1weq6pC35qb EwG46wZ2Cv+FkS Message-ID: <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:41:40 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 09:41:26 -0000 On 2011-08-06 11:03, mike amundsen wrote: > Mykyta: > > Understood. I will work up the I-D document(s) this weekend and update > my application. +10 > Should I write an I-D for each link rel type? or is it appropriate to > include both link rels in a single I-D? I think they should go into a single spec. (let me know if you need xml2rfc assistance) Best regards, Julian From ed.summers@gmail.com Sat Aug 6 06:58:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A1821F86EE for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:58:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id izwPLK+Ibv7I for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E2E21F86EC for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye1 with SMTP id 1so5182529iye.27 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 06:58:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=HvwSI6l1T53plcNzzDrua03tryLquSjSa/nu6HVvR/U=; b=iyfeCkCVsMmSX/R6CSlTKvTWdO6h/NR4iLmpE730mpPiyHrxWxyh7MSnEeeeiwAAhh ptu+6CzTdnQKxj3QEm52nEplggaX1blRNFqRoXu8hGfP2i9DJXkoKwwxP7cIjGoUAV2c yZo6Nknbk5tnjmcCsk0qY2STAR8zLsVgw7Eag= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.75.77 with SMTP id x13mr1413272ibj.55.1312639139715; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 06:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: ed.summers@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.16.77 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:58:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:58:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0GqEna9UDBpFX1ms_caXwWo02R4 Message-ID: From: Ed Summers To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:58:39 -0000 Hi Mike, +1 for your efforts on registering 'collection'. We have a need for a that could be used in HTML at MPOW. //Ed From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 19:10:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5558C21F86BA for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:10:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PtB0M5p0Cwsd for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAA321F86BB for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so470783wwf.13 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 19:10:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.163.133 with SMTP id a5mr1612353wel.58.1312683000018; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 19:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:09:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 22:09:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HIIsVD9tk53UaHI2nDV-63HAeLQ Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Ed Summers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 02:10:12 -0000 I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this before I post the first submission to the IETF. I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker (another first for me). Thanks in advance. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 09:58, Ed Summers wrote: > Hi Mike, > > +1 for your efforts on registering 'collection'. We have a need for a > that could be used in HTML at MPOW. > > //Ed > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From evnikita2@gmail.com Sat Aug 6 21:05:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A3521F85DA for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 21:05:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AGwHUSEU9sYG for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 21:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96B121F85C7 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 21:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so803551fxe.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q1WsvHnxnl2B3Obj9A8zv66e4hTYEscsDDaaznC2cG4=; b=tl6OQ4/Gm9UvfVlNMwjhHMcdK5oCQ1oVBP/0Rp0ubAwdW5dP9x9qyAS7xLaFglInzY ymwRZNuQM65KgnfwDHPPT1SX9oNL/S1Wp3kUlrp+a9WJEEe89jjlnQNsvTu+tsUpNZtb FImv40n8WwQ1DW4DCm/a+NfPxg1y5Los4VW9Y= Received: by 10.223.29.145 with SMTP id q17mr5357572fac.118.1312689973114; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5sm3136472fak.40.2011.08.06.21.06.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E3E0F5A.8010101@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 07:06:50 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: link-relations@ietf.org References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 04:05:52 -0000 Hi Mike, I think this draft is almost ready for uploading it to IETF repository. I'd like you made several changes/improvements - see below. In introduction, please include general statement on what is link relations. I propose "RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating resources on the Web. This document specifies two new reciprocal types of such relation..." Do you need Section 2? You don't use RFC 219 keywords in the document. With respect to Security considerations. I think you should just point to RFC 5988, which says everything you need; you new rel types don't add anything to security issues of RFC 5988. Should your draft refer to those documents you pointed to before (I mean OpenSearch, and two media types definitions). You may note in Introduction or create a separate Appendix that several known usages exist. Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev 07.08.2011 5:09, mike amundsen wrote: > I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: > http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ > > I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this > before I post the first submission to the IETF. > > I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security > Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within > this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. > > As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker > (another first for me). > > Thanks in advance. > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 > http://restfest.org > > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 09:58, Ed Summers wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> +1 for your efforts on registering 'collection'. We have a need for a >> that could be used in HTML at MPOW. >> >> //Ed >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >> > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 6 22:20:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F204121F8736 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 22:20:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xUXayJnO6MTn for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 22:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D0521F871E for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 22:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so2206410wyg.31 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:20:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.86.17 with SMTP id v17mr3372172wee.13.1312694424615; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 22:20:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E0F5A.8010101@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 01:20:24 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AGv30ufEii7EWtOGNVNWz1JjKDk Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 05:20:04 -0000 Mykyta: thanks for the feedback. i'll work up the edits and repost shortly. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 00:06, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrot= e: > Hi Mike, > > I think this draft is almost ready for uploading it to IETF repository. = =A0I'd > like you made several changes/improvements - see below. > > In introduction, please include general statement on what is link relatio= ns. > =A0I propose "RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating resources = on > the Web. =A0This document specifies two new reciprocal types of such > relation..." > > Do you need Section 2? =A0You don't use RFC 219 keywords in the document. > > With respect to Security considerations. =A0I think you should just point= to > RFC 5988, which says everything you need; you new rel types don't add > anything to security issues of RFC 5988. > > Should your draft refer to those documents you pointed to before (I mean > OpenSearch, and two media types definitions). =A0You may note in Introduc= tion > or create a separate Appendix that several known usages exist. > > Thanks, > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > 07.08.2011 5:09, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >> >> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this >> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >> >> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within >> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. >> >> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >> (another first for me). >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> mca >> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >> http://twitter.com@mamund >> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >> >> >> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >> http://restfest.org >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 09:58, Ed Summers =A0wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mike, >>> >>> +1 for your efforts on registering 'collection'. We have a need for a >>> =A0that could be used in HTML at MPOW. >>> >>> //Ed >>> _______________________________________________ >>> link-relations mailing list >>> link-relations@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >> > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sun Aug 7 06:32:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB03621F8507 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:32:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.066 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.467, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuxjgDRhkS8K for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C85621F84DC for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Aug 2011 13:32:34 -0000 Received: from p508FD141.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.209.65] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 07 Aug 2011 15:32:34 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Sq04O+XkSK000K3ZFCR3cQCMIQVnhVwxvbyAORs CtUFyeiEFelha5 Message-ID: <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 15:32:31 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:32:13 -0000 On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: > I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: > http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ > > I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this > before I post the first submission to the IETF. > ... OK. Looks good so far. A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? Do you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies? Editorial: - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may want to reference "your" media types - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the actual section - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. > I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security > Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within > this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues. > Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? > Infected Sites? > Pointing to malicious content? ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem to generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. > As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker > (another first for me). > ... Best regards, Julian From mca@amundsen.com Tue Aug 9 20:21:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D5E21F854C for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:21:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yb2fvTXI1VK1 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8210121F8549 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so669349fxe.31 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:21:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.15.138 with SMTP id k10mr10404606faa.101.1312946490412; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.223.107.19 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:21:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:21:30 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9lEugIvLilKqeLJkGiZnQbi3lGw Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 03:21:04 -0000 I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation Typ= es: http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ per suggestions from Mykyta & Julian: - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to RFC598= 8 - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML, and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction - dropped the 2119 section - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples; cleaned up the examples a bit, too. - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in 5988 - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian (is this what you meant?) Julian: regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed "collection" link-rel-type... I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed), but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a hierarchy. Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >> >> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this >> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >> ... > > OK. Looks good so far. > > A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? Do > you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies? > > Editorial: > > - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords > > - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may w= ant > to reference "your" media types > > - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples > > - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the > actual section > > - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. > >> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within >> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. > > As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues. > >> =A0 =A0Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? >> =A0 =A0Infected Sites? >> =A0 =A0Pointing to malicious content? > > ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem to > generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. > >> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >> (another first for me). >> ... > > Best regards, Julian > From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Aug 9 20:37:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F3B5E8002 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:37:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.063 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJ9xNH5mBrmM for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8085E8001 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so674820fxe.31 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=orQ2lSNyk0XgpG1uRPmH+xH1w8OmRXMVktGy8xRsqZ4=; b=fzYpzA7/sWTjK5phnPXPzm9tyAeoTeQg/w4cP68YD4xmCWmAOgAQ5qXC49u3q0T/Ia kNBuDQ4EqX5JNHoHfQh5Knsnrs0xDx8WF0cxFb8ctkgLiJ/reUG9fIbs/dPf+d5zm+LV YQLHVCX2wiyMct55qQpmJwWIJCyppWHzgrBE8= Received: by 10.223.55.203 with SMTP id v11mr6183126fag.78.1312947503201; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b14sm422384fab.19.2011.08.09.20.38.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:39:00 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 03:37:54 -0000 Mike, Please upload this draft with to allow further comments. Mykyta 10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote: > I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation Types: > http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ > > per suggestions from Mykyta& Julian: > - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to RFC5988 > - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML, > and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction > - dropped the 2119 section > - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples; > cleaned up the examples a bit, too. > - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in 5988 > - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian > (is this what you meant?) > > Julian: > regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed > "collection" link-rel-type... > I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean > to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be > used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed), > but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a > hierarchy. > > Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks. > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 > http://restfest.org > > > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: >>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>> >>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this >>> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >>> ... >> OK. Looks good so far. >> >> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? Do >> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies? >> >> Editorial: >> >> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords >> >> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may want >> to reference "your" media types >> >> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples >> >> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the >> actual section >> >> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. >> >>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within >>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. >> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues. >> >>> Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? >>> Infected Sites? >>> Pointing to malicious content? >> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem to >> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. >> >>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >>> (another first for me). >>> ... >> Best regards, Julian >> From mca@amundsen.com Tue Aug 9 20:55:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFDE21F8A96 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:55:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.342 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id akfiWtD8AFwD for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CEF21F8A95 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so680557fxe.31 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:55:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.54.90 with SMTP id p26mr10568342fag.44.1312948534440; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.223.107.19 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:55:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:55:34 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VgY4gjp4o7lSSxwgPadMQtpRZsc Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 03:55:05 -0000 Mykyta: Ok, will do. One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file. I assume the file names should be: draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension. thanks. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrot= e: > Mike, > > Please upload this draft with to > allow further comments. > > Mykyta > > 10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation >> Types: >> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >> >> per suggestions from Mykyta& =A0Julian: >> - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to >> RFC5988 >> - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML, >> and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction >> - dropped the 2119 section >> - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples; >> cleaned up the examples a bit, too. >> - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in 59= 88 >> - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian >> (is this what you meant?) >> >> Julian: >> regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed >> "collection" link-rel-type... >> I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean >> to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be >> used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed), >> but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a >> hierarchy. >> >> Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks. >> >> mca >> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >> http://twitter.com@mamund >> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >> >> >> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >> http://restfest.org >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke >> =A0wrote: >>> >>> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: >>>> >>>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>> >>>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this >>>> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >>>> ... >>> >>> OK. Looks good so far. >>> >>> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? = Do >>> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies= ? >>> >>> Editorial: >>> >>> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords >>> >>> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may >>> want >>> to reference "your" media types >>> >>> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples >>> >>> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the >>> actual section >>> >>> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. >>> >>>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >>>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within >>>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. >>> >>> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues. >>> >>>> =A0 =A0Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? >>>> =A0 =A0Infected Sites? >>>> =A0 =A0Pointing to malicious content? >>> >>> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem t= o >>> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. >>> >>>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >>>> (another first for me). >>>> ... >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> > > From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Aug 9 21:00:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3771C21F8A95 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:00:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.063 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5g4sJbPq7BdS for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32E121F8AAC for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so682336fxe.31 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:00:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nYs+qbSwMUMc/Gf2kgWxk/d+GaKpjBL59dwykjdbd9U=; b=i7+arkCRGp+7nQkc+KZwkKhIJho0gaC4iYjfPcnxc1WgvO74/v00tfSEpv8ru2gD1o qlIIpkIKTEFykdG7BIoNmf2LKQX0+3XiRTb0sLIb564iJHb13bS9eeZm7dzJCliTXPcT qLyKTbdsStC2/0/FGgP2F14oNjSopTr6cp8yI= Received: by 10.223.155.144 with SMTP id s16mr747893faw.41.1312948843622; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x2sm431567fal.20.2011.08.09.21.00.41 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:01:20 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:00:15 -0000 10.08.2011 6:55, mike amundsen wrote: > Mykyta: > > Ok, will do. > > One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file. > I assume the file names should be: > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml Yes, the TXT version you generate with xml2rfc and supply there is obligatory; XML version isn't, but you may also upload it. Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations list in editorial note after Abstract. Mykyta > > IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension. > > thanks. > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 > http://restfest.org > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> Mike, >> >> Please upload this draft with to >> allow further comments. >> >> Mykyta >> >> 10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote: >>> I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation >>> Types: >>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>> >>> per suggestions from Mykyta& Julian: >>> - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to >>> RFC5988 >>> - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML, >>> and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction >>> - dropped the 2119 section >>> - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples; >>> cleaned up the examples a bit, too. >>> - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in 5988 >>> - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian >>> (is this what you meant?) >>> >>> Julian: >>> regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed >>> "collection" link-rel-type... >>> I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean >>> to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be >>> used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed), >>> but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a >>> hierarchy. >>> >>> Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks. >>> >>> mca >>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>> >>> >>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >>> http://restfest.org >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke >>> wrote: >>>> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>>> >>>>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this >>>>> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >>>>> ... >>>> OK. Looks good so far. >>>> >>>> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? Do >>>> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies? >>>> >>>> Editorial: >>>> >>>> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords >>>> >>>> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may >>>> want >>>> to reference "your" media types >>>> >>>> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples >>>> >>>> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the >>>> actual section >>>> >>>> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. >>>> >>>>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >>>>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within >>>>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. >>>> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues. >>>> >>>>> Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? >>>>> Infected Sites? >>>>> Pointing to malicious content? >>>> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem to >>>> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. >>>> >>>>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >>>>> (another first for me). >>>>> ... >>>> Best regards, Julian >>>> >> From mca@amundsen.com Tue Aug 9 21:04:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F38021F8AAC for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:04:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.313 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdtRTrEFE8zq for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C2521F8865 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so683986fxe.31 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:05:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.32.67 with SMTP id b3mr5685411fad.25.1312949125675; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.223.107.19 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:05:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:05:25 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: C1VorSGK-NDuPXKXeZOV-IhIx8o Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:04:57 -0000 ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML. thanks for the assist. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:01, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wro= te: > 10.08.2011 6:55, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> Mykyta: >> >> Ok, will do. >> >> One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file. >> I assume the file names should be: >> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt >> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml > > Yes, the TXT version you generate with xml2rfc and supply there is > obligatory; XML version isn't, but you may also upload it. > > Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations lis= t > in editorial note after Abstract. > > Mykyta > >> >> IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension. >> >> thanks. >> >> mca >> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >> http://twitter.com@mamund >> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >> >> >> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >> http://restfest.org >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev >> =A0wrote: >>> >>> Mike, >>> >>> Please upload this draft with =A0= to >>> allow further comments. >>> >>> Mykyta >>> >>> 10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote: >>>> >>>> I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relatio= n >>>> Types: >>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>> >>>> per suggestions from Mykyta& =A0 =A0Julian: >>>> - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to >>>> RFC5988 >>>> - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML, >>>> and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction >>>> - dropped the 2119 section >>>> - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples; >>>> cleaned up the examples a bit, too. >>>> - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in >>>> 5988 >>>> - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian >>>> (is this what you meant?) >>>> >>>> Julian: >>>> regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed >>>> "collection" link-rel-type... >>>> I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean >>>> to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be >>>> used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed), >>>> but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a >>>> hierarchy. >>>> >>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks. >>>> >>>> mca >>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>>> >>>> >>>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >>>> http://restfest.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke >>>> =A0wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving th= is >>>>>> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >>>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> OK. Looks good so far. >>>>> >>>>> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"= ? >>>>> Do >>>>> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document >>>>> hierarchies? >>>>> >>>>> Editorial: >>>>> >>>>> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywor= ds >>>>> >>>>> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you m= ay >>>>> want >>>>> to reference "your" media types >>>>> >>>>> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples >>>>> >>>>> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to th= e >>>>> actual section >>>>> >>>>> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. >>>>> >>>>>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >>>>>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions withi= n >>>>>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. >>>>> >>>>> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues. >>>>> >>>>>> =A0 =A0Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? >>>>>> =A0 =A0Infected Sites? >>>>>> =A0 =A0Pointing to malicious content? >>>>> >>>>> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem >>>>> to >>>>> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. >>>>> >>>>>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >>>>>> (another first for me). >>>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, Julian >>>>> >>> > > From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Aug 9 21:54:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8A321F8751 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:54:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.062 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gitLo+-bNZz for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC0821F874E for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so702281fxe.31 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:55:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gE//XAsep0O45Oe/SI4Mr6M3pmXlhDnZR6p8wxqbKuI=; b=YyqT3+wQxBZPkuXhNezPFSL89kwzVpjauXshaEQ4ZqfxlES5ox9yLK2IvQYaIoF2HW LidVUqzsj2VKd4v/mO7wxLyotlc8shBo36g9CGZ+7r9dM2V3LJLMJz3oi8Jm/El/wzQ/ 1DmXnaMfbY2IXj3oY5uznlyz0nx7gwnUEj89M= Received: by 10.223.13.13 with SMTP id z13mr10453856faz.114.1312952113812; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b14sm451000fab.43.2011.08.09.21.55.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E420F56.7040408@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:55:50 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:54:45 -0000 Mike, I've recently seen your new draft -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00. Please see some comments below. Abstract (and also Section 1): > RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating resources on the > Web. Maybe, "of indicating relationships between resources on the Web"? Section 1: > 1. OpenSearch 1.1: see OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values> > > 2. Maze+XML: see > > > 3. Collection+JSON: see format/#link-relations> Maybe you can make these specs Informative references, in the following way: > 1. OpenSearch 1.1: see Section 4.5.4.1 of [OpenSearch] > > 2. Maze+XML: see Section 3 of [Maze] > > 3. Collection+JSON: see Section 2 of [CollectionJSON] The references should be: > [OpenSearch] D. Clinton, "OpenSearch 1.1", Work in Progress, (Date), > . > [Maze] M. Amundsen, "Maze+XML - Format", Web Page, December > 2010, . > [CollectionJSON] > M. Amundsen, "Collection+JSON - Document Format", Web > Page, July 2011, > I don't think it will be a problem to translate these references into xml2rfc format. In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 "Notes" and "Application Data" may safely be omitted. I suppose you may add a statement similar to one in the last paragraph of Appendix C of RFC 5741 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#appendix-C) in your document. Not a comment: How do you plan to process this document? As AD-sponsored submission (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html) or Independent Submission to RFC Editor (see RFC 4846)? Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev 10.08.2011 7:05, mike amundsen wrote: > ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML. > > thanks for the assist. > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 > http://restfest.org > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:01, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> 10.08.2011 6:55, mike amundsen wrote: >>> Mykyta: >>> >>> Ok, will do. >>> >>> One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file. >>> I assume the file names should be: >>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt >>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml >> Yes, the TXT version you generate with xml2rfc and supply there is >> obligatory; XML version isn't, but you may also upload it. >> >> Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations list >> in editorial note after Abstract. >> >> Mykyta >> >>> IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension. >>> >>> thanks. >>> >>> mca >>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>> >>> >>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >>> http://restfest.org >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev >>> wrote: >>>> Mike, >>>> >>>> Please upload this draft with to >>>> allow further comments. >>>> >>>> Mykyta >>>> >>>> 10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>> I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation >>>>> Types: >>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>>> >>>>> per suggestions from Mykyta& Julian: >>>>> - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to >>>>> RFC5988 >>>>> - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML, >>>>> and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction >>>>> - dropped the 2119 section >>>>> - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples; >>>>> cleaned up the examples a bit, too. >>>>> - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in >>>>> 5988 >>>>> - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian >>>>> (is this what you meant?) >>>>> >>>>> Julian: >>>>> regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed >>>>> "collection" link-rel-type... >>>>> I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean >>>>> to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be >>>>> used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed), >>>>> but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a >>>>> hierarchy. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks. >>>>> >>>>> mca >>>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>>>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>>>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >>>>> http://restfest.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>>>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >>>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this >>>>>>> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> OK. Looks good so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? >>>>>> Do >>>>>> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document >>>>>> hierarchies? >>>>>> >>>>>> Editorial: >>>>>> >>>>>> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords >>>>>> >>>>>> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may >>>>>> want >>>>>> to reference "your" media types >>>>>> >>>>>> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples >>>>>> >>>>>> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the >>>>>> actual section >>>>>> >>>>>> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >>>>>>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within >>>>>>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. >>>>>> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? >>>>>>> Infected Sites? >>>>>>> Pointing to malicious content? >>>>>> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem >>>>>> to >>>>>> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. >>>>>> >>>>>>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >>>>>>> (another first for me). >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> Best regards, Julian >>>>>> >> From julian.reschke@gmx.de Tue Aug 9 23:53:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0054A21F8568 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.587, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k4tFHIMR2MyS for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EEFF121F8562 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2011 06:54:01 -0000 Received: from p508F9E7A.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.158.122] by mail.gmx.net (mp055) with SMTP; 10 Aug 2011 08:54:01 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/MVvJTPDHMFqY0IS/5J96oQxr2aH/M4D9Td0Elgz yUkHzqKA8kqPzB Message-ID: <4E422B04.4000800@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:53:56 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:53:33 -0000 On 2011-08-10 06:05, mike amundsen wrote: > ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML. > > thanks for the assist. > ... +1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't supposed to be a discussion list...) Thanks, Mike! Best regards, Julian From mca@amundsen.com Wed Aug 10 08:21:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F7621F8876 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I8+moFflOmXt for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53B521F84D7 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so900065wyg.31 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.157.138 with SMTP id o10mr815099wek.13.1312989696085; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E420F56.7040408@gmail.com> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> <4E420F56.7040408@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:21:36 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1GTcBcndXIkEFyRyz6Lc8tYzDoc Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:21:13 -0000 On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wro= te: > Mike, > > I've recently seen your new draft -- > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relati= ons-00. > =A0Please see some comments below. > > Abstract (and also Section 1): > >> =A0 =A0RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating resources on the >> =A0 =A0Web. > > Maybe, "of indicating relationships between resources on the Web"? How about this: "RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the relationships between resources on the Web." the content for this sentence comes from Section 1 of RFC5988. > > Section 1: > >> =A0 =A01. =A0OpenSearch 1.1: see> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values> >> >> =A0 =A02. =A0Maze+XML: see >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 >> >> =A0 =A03. =A0Collection+JSON: see> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0format/#link-relations> > > Maybe you can make these specs Informative references, in the following w= ay: > >> =A0 =A01. =A0OpenSearch 1.1: see Section 4.5.4.1 of [OpenSearch] >> >> =A0 =A02. =A0Maze+XML: see Section 3 of [Maze] >> >> =A0 =A03. =A0Collection+JSON: see Section 2 of [CollectionJSON] > > The references should be: > >> [OpenSearch] =A0D. Clinton, "OpenSearch 1.1", Work in Progress, (Date), >> . >> [Maze] =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0M. Amundsen, "Maze+XML - Format", Web Page, Decemb= er 2010, >> . >> [CollectionJSON] >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0M. Amundsen, "Collection+JSON - Document Form= at", Web Page, >> July 2011, >> > > I don't think it will be a problem to translate these references into > xml2rfc format. sounds fine. i have some inline examples of reference markup for the RFC XML; should be no problem. > > In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 "Notes" and "Application Data" may safely be > omitted. Done. > > I suppose you may add a statement similar to one in the last paragraph of > Appendix C of RFC 5741 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#appendix-C) in > your document. Yes, I have a couple people in mind already. > > Not a comment: How do you plan to process this document? =A0As AD-sponsor= ed > submission (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html) o= r > Independent Submission to RFC Editor (see RFC 4846)? Doing some reading and will post again to get feedback. MCA > > Thanks, > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > 10.08.2011 7:05, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML. >> >> thanks for the assist. >> >> mca >> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >> http://twitter.com@mamund >> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >> >> >> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >> http://restfest.org >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:01, Mykyta Yevstifeyev >> =A0wrote: >>> >>> 10.08.2011 6:55, mike amundsen wrote: >>>> >>>> Mykyta: >>>> >>>> Ok, will do. >>>> >>>> One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file. >>>> I assume the file names should be: >>>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt >>>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml >>> >>> Yes, the TXT version you generate with xml2rfc and supply there is >>> obligatory; XML version isn't, but you may also upload it. >>> >>> Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations >>> list >>> in editorial note after Abstract. >>> >>> Mykyta >>> >>>> IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension. >>>> >>>> thanks. >>>> >>>> mca >>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>>> >>>> >>>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >>>> http://restfest.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev >>>> =A0wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Mike, >>>>> >>>>> Please upload this draft with >>>>> =A0to >>>>> allow further comments. >>>>> >>>>> Mykyta >>>>> >>>>> 10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link >>>>>> Relation >>>>>> Types: >>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>>>> >>>>>> per suggestions from Mykyta& =A0 =A0 =A0Julian: >>>>>> - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to >>>>>> RFC5988 >>>>>> - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XM= L, >>>>>> and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction >>>>>> - dropped the 2119 section >>>>>> - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header example= s; >>>>>> cleaned up the examples a bit, too. >>>>>> - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections i= n >>>>>> 5988 >>>>>> - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Juli= an >>>>>> (is this what you meant?) >>>>>> >>>>>> Julian: >>>>>> regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed >>>>>> "collection" link-rel-type... >>>>>> I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I me= an >>>>>> to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can = be >>>>>> used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed)= , >>>>>> but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a >>>>>> hierarchy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks. >>>>>> >>>>>> mca >>>>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>>>>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>>>>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 >>>>>> http://restfest.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke >>>>>> =A0wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here: >>>>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> before I post the first submission to the IETF. >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK. Looks good so far. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and >>>>>>> "collection"? >>>>>>> Do >>>>>>> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document >>>>>>> hierarchies? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Editorial: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the >>>>>>> keywords >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you >>>>>>> may >>>>>>> want >>>>>>> to reference "your" media types >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> actual section >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security >>>>>>>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions >>>>>>>> within >>>>>>>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issue= s. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =A0 =A0Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries? >>>>>>>> =A0 =A0Infected Sites? >>>>>>>> =A0 =A0Pointing to malicious content? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these se= em >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker >>>>>>>> (another first for me). >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, Julian >>>>>>> >>> > > From mca@amundsen.com Wed Aug 10 08:23:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10CE21F84FB for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:23:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kqEF4S8-8VMf for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0892D21F84F4 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so901771wyg.31 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:23:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.157.138 with SMTP id o10mr817194wek.13.1312989821889; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E422B04.4000800@gmx.de> References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> <4E422B04.4000800@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:23:41 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: u1gZcv5rzpiI6hoqFfElyXXcb3U Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:23:17 -0000 > +1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't supposed > to be a discussion list...) Hrmm.... ok, i'll change this back to apps-discuss per the template you originally supplied. Mike On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:53, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-08-10 06:05, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML. >> >> thanks for the assist. >> ... > > +1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't supposed > to be a discussion list...) > > Thanks, Mike! > > Best regards, Julian > From mca@amundsen.com Wed Aug 10 08:25:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD8C21F8509 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:25:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iEAviaTUzNdu for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF71C21F84F4 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so3277213wwe.1 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:25:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.217.2.202 with SMTP id p52mr6816839wes.28.1312989937990; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> <4E422B04.4000800@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:37 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: DWNzbP2WYMFp7SVwrYneGiDOnyM Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:25:08 -0000 Operational question:. Once I make the suggested changes to the "00" draft, do i just submit again to the data tracker as "01"? Or do I need to wait for some formal processing of the existing "00" entry first? On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:23, mike amundsen wrote: > >> +1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't supposed >> to be a discussion list...) > > > Hrmm.... > > ok, i'll change this back to apps-discuss per the template you > originally supplied. > > Mike > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:53, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2011-08-10 06:05, mike amundsen wrote: >>> >>> ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML. >>> >>> thanks for the assist. >>> ... >> >> +1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't supposed >> to be a discussion list...) >> >> Thanks, Mike! >> >> Best regards, Julian >> > From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Aug 10 08:28:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0DC21F8596 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sVRqMoEy0BHI for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C16B21F8593 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (unknown [216.17.251.17]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA79541463; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:30:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4E42A3B5.8010300@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:28:53 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <4E3CF493.9010007@gmx.de> <4E3CFA65.3090300@gmx.de> <4E3CFE8A.1070103@gmail.com> <4E3D0C54.7070209@gmx.de> <4E3E93EF.8050800@gmx.de> <4E41FD54.4070907@gmail.com> <4E420290.5040601@gmail.com> <4E422B04.4000800@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:28:23 -0000 On 8/10/11 9:25 AM, mike amundsen wrote: > Operational question:. > > Once I make the suggested changes to the "00" draft, do i just submit > again to the data tracker as "01"? Or do I need to wait for some > formal processing of the existing "00" entry first? Just submit 01. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From mca@amundsen.com Wed Aug 10 21:30:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED5C21F87DA for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:30:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tykrex4xgfFx for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A38521F87D9 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so1206397wwf.13 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:30:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.157.135 with SMTP id o7mr1345636wek.28.1313037053811; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:30:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110811025633.30490.54081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20110811025633.30490.54081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:30:53 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oOT36DDTRZDimDdr3KK6nHRU0o4 Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 04:30:21 -0000 FYI: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 22:56 Subject: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt To: mca@amundsen.com Cc: mca@amundsen.com A new version of I-D, draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A001 Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Item and Collection Link Relations Creation date: =A0 2011-08-10 WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission Number of pages: 5 Abstract: =A0 RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the =A0 relationships between resources on the Web. This specification =A0 defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to =A0 express the relationship between a collection and its members. Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) =A0 Distribution of this document is unlimited. =A0Comments should be sent =A0 to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see =A0 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>). The IETF Secretariat From evnikita2@gmail.com Thu Aug 11 00:08:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB5D5E8006 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:08:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.363 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VgiEQFtVm0IE for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865695E8002 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so939369bka.31 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:09:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cB8LoQsW5PpQZpg9lA3mRPybKPHo3vHeg1lnMz/8qrg=; b=JrVDG+4HdbzBLowIyzb4HX3rRBXt9Va96vaBfeie0caRe5tdgvzkx8SHwIkfcv4E3d yhVz51h1S0NeFjI3TIaALJFZESfiXzlN2MEdOjf4HRBKvlUQm27DtDbXKIpOSKaYIMmp GCoRsR170yQyKsvvZYhU2hFKwfsLdA8WXJpAw= Received: by 10.204.157.137 with SMTP id b9mr627669bkx.30.1313046563215; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f12sm425346bkt.36.2011.08.11.00.09.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E438048.3030902@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:10:00 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: link-relations@ietf.org References: <20110811025633.30490.54081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:08:51 -0000 Mike, Thanks for this update. I think the document is ready to progress (see http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html). The only two issues: > [OpenSearch] Clinton, D., "Open Search 1.1", Work in Progress , > January 1900, Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1/>. Was it actually written in 1900 ;-)? I think, as we cannot find the publication date, the "Undated" label should be sufficient enough here. The second: > 4. Security Considerations > > See Section 7 of RFC5988 [RFC5988]. > > 5. Internationalisation Considerations > > See Section 8 of RFC5988 [RFC5988]. You can put something like this here: > 4. Security Considerations > > Two link relation types defined in this document are not believed > to introduce any new security issues to those which are discussed > in Section 7 of RFC 5988 [RFC5988]. > > 5. Internationalisation Considerations > > The 'item' and 'collection' link relations do not have any > internationalization considerations other than those which are > discussed in Section 8 of RFC 5988. This suits the current practices of writing RFCs better that your variant, IMO. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 11.08.2011 7:30, mike amundsen wrote: > FYI: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 22:56 > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt > To:mca@amundsen.com > Cc:mca@amundsen.com > > > A new version of I-D, > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt has been > successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations > Revision: 01 > Title: The Item and Collection Link Relations > Creation date: 2011-08-10 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 5 > > Abstract: > RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the > relationships between resources on the Web. This specification > defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to > express the relationship between a collection and its members. > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) > > Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent > to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>). > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From mca@amundsen.com Thu Aug 11 02:11:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1812121F8634 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:11:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.657 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GU-hZ6DOq0Aw for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB3E21F855D for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so1322427wwf.13 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:11:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.217.2.202 with SMTP id p52mr723621wes.28.1313053918333; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:11:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E438048.3030902@gmail.com> References: <20110811025633.30490.54081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E438048.3030902@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:11:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FiM2r5diwDy6Kci9VKcG5e75DpM Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:11:26 -0000 On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 03:10, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wro= te: > Mike, > > Thanks for this update. =A0I think the document is ready to progress (see > http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html). =A0The only two issues: > >> =A0 =A0[OpenSearch] =A0 =A0 =A0Clinton, D., "Open Search 1.1", Work in P= rogress , >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0January 1900,> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1= />. > > Was it actually written in 1900 ;-)? =A0I think, as we cannot find the > publication date, the "Undated" label should be sufficient enough here. Ha! goof catch. The > second: > >> 4. =A0Security Considerations >> >> =A0 =A0See Section 7 of RFC5988 [RFC5988]. >> >> 5. =A0Internationalisation Considerations >> >> =A0 =A0See Section 8 of RFC5988 [RFC5988]. > > You can put something like this here: > >> 4. =A0Security Considerations >> >> =A0 =A0Two link relation types defined in this document are not believed >> =A0 =A0to introduce any new security issues to those which are discussed >> =A0 =A0in Section 7 of RFC 5988 [RFC5988]. >> >> 5. =A0Internationalisation Considerations >> >> =A0 =A0The 'item' and 'collection' link relations do not have any >> =A0 =A0internationalization considerations other than those which are >> =A0 =A0discussed in Section 8 of RFC 5988. > > This suits the current practices of writing RFCs better that your variant= , > IMO. Will do. > > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > 11.08.2011 7:30, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> FYI: >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: >> Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 22:56 >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt >> To:mca@amundsen.com >> Cc:mca@amundsen.com >> >> >> A new version of I-D, >> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-01.txt has been >> successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF >> repository. >> >> Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relatio= ns >> Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A001 >> Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Item and Collection Link Relations >> Creation date: =A0 2011-08-10 >> WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 5 >> >> Abstract: >> =A0 RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the >> =A0 relationships between resources on the Web. This specification >> =A0 defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to >> =A0 express the relationship between a collection and its members. >> >> Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) >> >> =A0 Distribution of this document is unlimited. =A0Comments should be se= nt >> =A0 to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see >> =A0 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>). >> >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >> > > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From mca@amundsen.com Fri Aug 12 15:50:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B156F21F847D for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:50:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.659 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PXW4igSzt2nz for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB5221F88A1 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so2323680wwf.13 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:51:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.157.138 with SMTP id o10mr1297398wek.13.1313189468625; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:51:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:51:08 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: get2WKqeeBvAw6WF6mvOtfzCckk Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:50:31 -0000 - Corrected the pub date for OpenSearch 1.1 WIP - Modified the text for Security & International Considerations Mike Amundsen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: =A0 Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 18:38 Subject: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt To: mca@amundsen.com Cc: mca@amundsen.com A new version of I-D, draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A002 Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Item and Collection Link Relations Creation date: =A0 2011-08-12 WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission Number of pages: 5 Abstract: =A0 RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the =A0 relationships between resources on the Web. This specification =A0 defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to =A0 express the relationship between a collection and its members. Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) =A0 Distribution of this document is unlimited. =A0Comments should be sent =A0 to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see =A0 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>). The IETF Secretariat From evnikita2@gmail.com Fri Aug 12 20:42:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A2011E808A for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:42:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.368 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0oeHgVRBzlL for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478F011E8086 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so2972420fxe.31 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:42:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eyFUVsEAh138WmzKGXgldgd4Bb/b0OAfdzeVoH/5V/g=; b=sCKlodZ92wO1GYO+J26z7sJWrhvwexxS2Nm8wY9fG98+730ttS1OxwdUh4XPzs8LdT qH6B4Ahktiodv18nE2QlidDq0As0t0B8L0ZDlXEpqIdxolXMK+lSwcjRUvwfrj4iumT1 9tfruvjDIofjuosHV0zc/6VpxAK7s65Ogr1Lw= Received: by 10.223.15.13 with SMTP id i13mr2209893faa.51.1313206967997; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q15sm2934033fah.32.2011.08.12.20.42.45 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:43:24 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: link-relations@ietf.org References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 03:42:13 -0000 Mike, Thanks for this update. I think (and my opinion didn't change) that you may safely move the draft forward as Independent Submission. Mykyta 13.08.2011 1:51, mike amundsen wrote: > - Corrected the pub date for OpenSearch 1.1 WIP > - Modified the text for Security& International Considerations > > Mike Amundsen > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 18:38 > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt > To: mca@amundsen.com > Cc: mca@amundsen.com > > > A new version of I-D, > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt has been > successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations > Revision: 02 > Title: The Item and Collection Link Relations > Creation date: 2011-08-12 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 5 > > Abstract: > RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the > relationships between resources on the Web. This specification > defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to > express the relationship between a collection and its members. > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) > > Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent > to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>). > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From mca@amundsen.com Sat Aug 13 08:17:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1698121F86A9 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzkVfW7BuJ9v for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F2C21F865F for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so2562512wwf.13 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.135.71 with SMTP id t49mr1887717wei.43.1313248703867; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.164.81 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:18:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:18:23 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0offjBw7G3S7nEEzO5d79Zw_JUo Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:17:45 -0000 Mykyta: I'll prep an email to the RFC-Editor this weekend. I plan on naming you and Julian as suggested reviewers. I'll copy the list when I send the submission. Thanks. Mike On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 23:43, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wro= te: > Mike, > > Thanks for this update. =A0I think (and my opinion didn't change) that yo= u may > safely move the draft forward as Independent Submission. > > Mykyta > > 13.08.2011 1:51, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> - Corrected the pub date for OpenSearch 1.1 WIP >> - Modified the text for Security& =A0International Considerations >> >> Mike Amundsen >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: >> Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 18:38 >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt >> To: mca@amundsen.com >> Cc: mca@amundsen.com >> >> >> A new version of I-D, >> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt has been >> successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF >> repository. >> >> Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relatio= ns >> Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A002 >> Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Item and Collection Link Relations >> Creation date: =A0 2011-08-12 >> WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 5 >> >> Abstract: >> =A0 RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the >> =A0 relationships between resources on the Web. This specification >> =A0 defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to >> =A0 express the relationship between a collection and its members. >> >> Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) >> >> =A0 Distribution of this document is unlimited. =A0Comments should be se= nt >> =A0 to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see >> =A0 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>). >> >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >> > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From mca@amundsen.com Mon Aug 29 07:29:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC0F21F8A36 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.815, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6yW5QTH6RF+d for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA7A21F893C for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so2461378wwe.1 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.230.25 with SMTP id i25mr3418962weq.91.1314628258414; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.216.64.205 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:30:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Hoj4NFHqwsi6pO4UglD0eXz-LW0 Message-ID: From: mike amundsen To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65a06c05ac2b704aba5be49 Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:29:37 -0000 --0016e65a06c05ac2b704aba5be49 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'd like to move this link-relations I-D forward as an Independent Submission, I've been reading through the Independent Submissions page[1] and have a couple Qs on how to get this started: - Do I need to post any msg to the app-discuss list as part of this process? - Is there a page that "walks" me through composing the "formal" request to the rfc-editor.org account? Any additional comment/pointers/advice is most welcome. [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 http://restfest.org On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 23:43, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Mike, > > Thanks for this update. I think (and my opinion didn't change) that you > may safely move the draft forward as Independent Submission. > > Mykyta > > > 13.08.2011 1:51, mike amundsen wrote: > >> - Corrected the pub date for OpenSearch 1.1 WIP >> - Modified the text for Security& International Considerations >> >> Mike Amundsen >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: >> Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 18:38 >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-amundsen-item-and-**collection-link-relations-02.**txt >> To: mca@amundsen.com >> Cc: mca@amundsen.com >> >> >> A new version of I-D, >> draft-amundsen-item-and-**collection-link-relations-02.**txt has been >> successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF >> repository. >> >> Filename: draft-amundsen-item-and-**collection-link-relations >> Revision: 02 >> Title: The Item and Collection Link Relations >> Creation date: 2011-08-12 >> WG ID: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 5 >> >> Abstract: >> RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the >> relationships between resources on the Web. This specification >> defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to >> express the relationship between a collection and its members. >> >> Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) >> >> Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent >> to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see >> <https://www.ietf.org/**mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss&**gt; >> ). >> >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> ______________________________**_________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/link-relations >> >> > ______________________________**_________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/link-relations > --0016e65a06c05ac2b704aba5be49 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd like to move this link-relations I-D forward as an Independent=A0Su= bmission,

I've been reading through the Independent = Submissions page[1] and have a couple Qs on how to get this started:

- Do I need to post any msg to the app-discuss list as part of this process= ?
- Is there a page that "walks" me through composing t= he "formal" request to the rfc-= editor.org account?

Any additional comment/pointers/advice is most welcome.=




mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mam= und
http://m= amund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
http://restfest.org


On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 23:43, Mykyta Ye= vstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike,

Thanks for this update. =A0I think (and my opinion didn't change) that = you may safely move the draft forward as Independent Submission.

Mykyta


13.08.2011 1:51, mike amundsen wrote:
- Corrected the pub date for OpenSearch 1.1 WIP
- Modified the text for Security& =A0International Considerations

Mike Amundsen

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:<inte= rnet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 18:38
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt
To: mca@amundsen.com<= /a>
Cc: mca@amundsen.com<= /a>


A new version of I-D,
draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt has = been
successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF
repository.

Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-rel= ations
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A002
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Item and Collection Link Relations
Creation date: =A0 2011-08-12
WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 5

Abstract:
=A0 RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the
=A0 relationships between resources on the Web. This specification
=A0 defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to =A0 express the relationship between a collection and its members.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

=A0 Distribution of this document is unlimited. =A0Comments should be sent=
=A0 to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see
=A0 &lt;https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-dis= cuss&gt;).




The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
link-relations mailing list
link-relations= @ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations


_______________________________________________
link-relations mailing list
link-relations= @ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

--0016e65a06c05ac2b704aba5be49-- From evnikita2@gmail.com Mon Aug 29 07:54:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EA021F8B8A for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CahePVzRs3nE for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8613621F8B78 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so5048212bka.31 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:56:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=S76tl4sDhBR1cIA+RV5qZyRgt0OI8tC8yWgmnONl/Zc=; b=DEEnUvq9Ao4FZP/MJpxj8P8eLkdh2TPh/yZd59F8PS+zrPE1RwLf+whrQyclrHF94I FpPLM90/K5ci/Otqya90P0CgkRPXP7BbDKUxxhowgJJhASvofc3H/cGQDUeq41AAPfyC cHmHayR1O9kMo+u/M5020VKGAu6FbbGQI6kso= Received: by 10.204.157.19 with SMTP id z19mr2132493bkw.255.1314629779642; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n9sm1240210bkd.40.2011.08.29.07.56.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E5BA8B2.4030603@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:56:50 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: link-relations@ietf.org References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060002080304000302090404" Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:54:57 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060002080304000302090404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 29.08.2011 17:30, mike amundsen wrote: > I'd like to move this link-relations I-D forward as an > Independent Submission, > > I've been reading through the Independent Submissions page[1] and have > a couple Qs on how to get this started: > > - Do I need to post any msg to the app-discuss list as part of this > process? No, you don't. > - Is there a page that "walks" me through composing the "formal" > request to the rfc-editor.org account? Isn't [1] OK? You just need to compose a message to Nevil, Independent Submissions Editor, who's under the rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org address, and supply all the information [1] asks you to supply. Then he'll give you all further instructions. Mykyta > > Any additional comment/pointers/advice is most welcome. > > > [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html > > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20 > http://restfest.org > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 23:43, Mykyta Yevstifeyev > wrote: > > Mike, > > Thanks for this update. I think (and my opinion didn't change) > that you may safely move the draft forward as Independent Submission. > > Mykyta > > > 13.08.2011 1:51, mike amundsen wrote: > > - Corrected the pub date for OpenSearch 1.1 WIP > - Modified the text for Security& International Considerations > > Mike Amundsen > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:> > Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 18:38 > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt > To: mca@amundsen.com > Cc: mca@amundsen.com > > > A new version of I-D, > draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt has been > successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations > Revision: 02 > Title: The Item and Collection Link Relations > Creation date: 2011-08-12 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 5 > > Abstract: > RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the > relationships between resources on the Web. This specification > defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be > used to > express the relationship between a collection and its members. > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) > > Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should > be sent > to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss> > ). > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > > > > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations --------------060002080304000302090404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 29.08.2011 17:30, mike amundsen wrote:
I'd like to move this link-relations I-D forward as an Independent Submission,

I've been reading through the Independent Submissions page[1] and have a couple Qs on how to get this started:

- Do I need to post any msg to the app-discuss list as part of this process?

No, you don't.

- Is there a page that "walks" me through composing the "formal" request to the rfc-editor.org account?

Isn't [1] OK?  You just need to compose a message to Nevil, Independent Submissions Editor, who's under the rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org address, and supply all the information [1] asks you to supply.  Then he'll give you all further instructions.

Mykyta


Any additional comment/pointers/advice is most welcome.




mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
http://restfest.org


On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 23:43, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike,

Thanks for this update.  I think (and my opinion didn't change) that you may safely move the draft forward as Independent Submission.

Mykyta


13.08.2011 1:51, mike amundsen wrote:
- Corrected the pub date for OpenSearch 1.1 WIP
- Modified the text for Security&  International Considerations

Mike Amundsen

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:<internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 18:38
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt
To: mca@amundsen.com
Cc: mca@amundsen.com


A new version of I-D,
draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt has been
successfully submitted by Mike Amundsen and posted to the IETF
repository.

Filename:        draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations
Revision:        02
Title:           The Item and Collection Link Relations
Creation date:   2011-08-12
WG ID:           Individual Submission
Number of pages: 5

Abstract:
  RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the
  relationships between resources on the Web. This specification
  defines a pair of reciprocal link relation types that may be used to
  express the relationship between a collection and its members.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

  Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Comments should be sent
  to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see
  &lt;https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss&gt;).




The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
link-relations mailing list
link-relations@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations


_______________________________________________
link-relations mailing list
link-relations@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations



_______________________________________________
link-relations mailing list
link-relations@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

--------------060002080304000302090404-- From julian.reschke@gmx.de Mon Aug 29 09:58:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E217F21F8C42 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.601, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xgObkMUgvwEO for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E16B821F8C48 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2011 17:00:15 -0000 Received: from p508FA9C1.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.169.193] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 29 Aug 2011 19:00:15 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+q/TM0SqWqcUDDEvlwLVi2bMGScGhz6Jgb8DX4vV MP46J4dJ5Xqxvo Message-ID: <4E5BC59F.90507@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:00:15 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike amundsen References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:58:53 -0000 On 2011-08-29 16:30, mike amundsen wrote: > I'd like to move this link-relations I-D forward as an > Independent Submission, > > I've been reading through the Independent Submissions page[1] and have a > couple Qs on how to get this started: > > - Do I need to post any msg to the app-discuss list as part of this process? You do not have to. That being said, I think it's always a good idea to post an announcement and a call for comments before proceeding. > ... Best regards, Julian From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Mon Aug 29 13:45:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D5E21F8D39 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:45:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ms4VZbvFKdp9 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C4121F8D38 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so20094455pzk.18 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:46:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=d6GqGQ3LNx4IP7Ou9jSlqfgn/CwHrYCs0r81MbQ41Bc=; b=jYvwMwoKBzdTGPZGT7tEtgH4ehdimBUAIVJoU8PpLQtCP/QRpGdLQPOS8exXJiNCqA y0QhciJHWusIxZDf/0twHe3GIhXeaug8zMgd83Y7kS7kFre1vScM2V+Fbjc6Rlx3PNKC Mw3DnbIejVSPwFE8jHByuJiWU9vDwrABBHPsA= Received: by 10.143.60.19 with SMTP id n19mr2691228wfk.241.1314650817127; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:46:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.98.5 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:46:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> From: Frank Ellermann Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:46:17 +0200 Message-ID: To: mike amundsen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:45:32 -0000 On 29 August 2011 16:30, mike amundsen wrote: > Do I need to post any msg to the app-discuss list as part of this process? Some *public* place (mailing list, Google group, newsgroup, wiki, etc.) to discuss Internet drafts is good, otherwise reviews end up in your inbox, where it's tricky to resolve any disputes. Just using any list could be wrong if the list owner or list users don't like the topic. For an independent submission I'm not sure about using IETF mailing lists without getting some kind of permission first. But of course you could try this anyway, and figure out what happens if you do. ;-) > Is there a page that "walks" me through composing the "formal" > request to the rfc-editor.org account? Dunno, but you could ask that question on the "RFC interest" mailing list . There is an "independent submission editorial board" (or similar), and if you know one of the editors you can also ask them directly. -Frank From julian.reschke@gmx.de Mon Aug 29 14:06:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CD021F8761 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.156 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tp2Rb6YScsjk for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CE25921F874E for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2011 21:08:00 -0000 Received: from p508FA9C1.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.169.193] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 29 Aug 2011 23:08:00 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/FHjNzTy/FdvPlMZHnJdWypW460UrXzTldN06BZA uylo0aLTRvVnVC Message-ID: <4E5BFFB0.60907@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:08:00 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: <20110812223857.24366.15670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E45F2DC.4090802@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:06:36 -0000 On 2011-08-29 22:46, Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 29 August 2011 16:30, mike amundsen wrote: > >> Do I need to post any msg to the app-discuss list as part of this process? > > Some *public* place (mailing list, Google group, newsgroup, wiki, etc.) > to discuss Internet drafts is good, otherwise reviews end up in your > inbox, where it's tricky to resolve any disputes. Just using any list > could be wrong if the list owner or list users don't like the topic. > ... with my Expert Reviewer hat on: I believe apps-discuss is the right place to announce drafts and ask for feedback. Best regards, Julian From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Aug 30 21:32:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9988C21F8C30; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:32:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxUS06Pg0zSY; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D420921F8C31; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so444190bka.31 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:33:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=xcYzjLjljBfhrsh2aC3tpqwZuSZCBpOJ1jaj3ebgFwI=; b=bLxf/YuwshfCmeDdCZdXbNJg5RS4v/BlJbUl0tMynq0cBbbq4IVQFH2YGqKOuwBy0g Op9S6XcrJxlctGs1QM3q9vE327OF4k3EVrmrPuulBbdP+WwwKKSLwiXbJsR+byonh2Es kyLYtHYvGIaElquBh0H4UMmQ1x9aYVt+yPz0s= Received: by 10.204.135.73 with SMTP id m9mr603106bkt.340.1314765210388; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6sm199022bkw.30.2011.08.30.21.33.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E5DB9B8.70006@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:34:00 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org References: <20110829144145.31952.69055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E5D06EA.9040205@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090406090607000400070606" Cc: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation@tools.ietf.org, "link-relations@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [link-relations] [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:32:03 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090406090607000400070606 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maile and Joachim, I did provide some comments on this draft on link-relations list; but I'd like you processed several new editorial issues/nits prior to submitting publication request. > Abstract > > The canonical link relation, developed from [RFC5988] which indicates > relationships between Internet links, specifies the preferred URI > from a set of identical or vastly similar content accessible on > multiple URIs. This isn't clear enough for abstract. I propose: > Abstract > > RFC 5988 specified a way to define relationships betweeen links on > the Web. This document describes a new type of such relationship, > 'canonical', which desigantes the preferred URI from a set of identical > or vastly similar ones. A similar text should go in the first paragraph of Introduction. In Introduction: > making it possible for references to the context URI to be updated to > reference the designated URI. Maybe you meant "target URI" instead "designated URI" (terminology from RFC 5988). Section 3: > The target/canonical URI MAY: > > o Specify a URI Reference (see [RFC3986] Section 4.1) i.e., an > absolute URI or a relative reference What you mean here? If you wanted to show that canonical URI may be a relative one, you should better write: > The target/canonical URI MAY: > > o Be a relative URI (see [RFC3986], Section 4.2); Ibid: > The target/canonical URI SHOULD NOT designate: > > o The source URI of a permanent redirect (for HTTP, this refers to > Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]) or a "300 Multiple Choices" URI > (Section 10.3.1 of [RFC2616]) Here probably a typo happened; so please change to: > The target/canonical URI SHOULD NOT designate: > > o The URI which is a source of a permanent redirect (for HTTP, this > refers to 300 and 301 response codes, defined in Sections > 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 of RFC 2616 [RFC2616]); Ibid: > o A URI that serves a 4xx error code (Section 10.4 of [RFC2616]). Again, HTTP-centric approach. There are many other application-layer protocols, for which URI schemes exist, and they aren't very likely to even have the same req/response model as HTTP has. As this is only available in HTTP, I propose to exclude this bullet, unless you can reformulate it so that it doesn't use HTTP-only feature. > o The first page of a multi-page article or multi-page listing of > items (since the first page is not a duplicate or a superset or > the context URI). For example, page2 and page3 of an article > SHOULD NOT specify page1 as the canonical. Here you may point to Section 6.12 of you reference [REC-html401-19991224], which specifies the 'start' relation (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/types.html#idx-link_type), used for this purpose. In Section 5: > 2. Permanent HTTP redirects (Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]), the > traditional strong indicator that a URI's content has been > permanently moved, could not be implemented in place of the > canonical link relation. Also too HTTP-centric approach. The same as above applies. References: Why make RFC 2616 and HTML4 spec Normative references? Shouldn't Informative be OK? Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev 31.08.2011 1:21, Maile Ohye wrote: > Hi everyone, please let us know if you have additional feedback. After > many rounds of helpful discussion, I think we're nearing submission. :) > > I hope to submit a publication request on Wednesday, September 7th, 2011. > > Thanks! > Maile > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:41:45 -0700 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : The Canonical Link Relation > Author(s) : Maile Ohye > Joachim Kupke > Filename : draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2011-07-30 > > The canonical link relation, developed from [RFC5988] which > indicates > relationships between Internet links, specifies the preferred URI > from a set of identical or vastly similar content accessible on > multiple URIs. > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) > > Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent > to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss> > ). > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss --------------090406090607000400070606 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maile and Joachim,

I did provide some comments on this draft on link-relations list; but I'd like you processed several new editorial issues/nits prior to submitting publication request.

Abstract

   The canonical link relation, developed from [RFC5988] which indicates
   relationships between Internet links, specifies the preferred URI
   from a set of identical or vastly similar content accessible on
   multiple URIs.

This isn't clear enough for abstract.  I propose:

Abstract

   RFC 5988 specified a way to define relationships betweeen links on
   the Web.  This document describes a new type of such relationship,
   'canonical', which desigantes the preferred URI from a set of identical
   or vastly similar ones.

A similar text should go in the first paragraph of Introduction.

In Introduction:

   making it possible for references to the context URI to be updated to
   reference the designated URI.

Maybe you meant "target URI" instead "designated URI" (terminology from RFC 5988).

Section 3:

   The target/canonical URI MAY:

   o  Specify a URI Reference (see [RFC3986] Section 4.1) i.e., an
      absolute URI or a relative reference

What you mean here?  If you wanted to show that canonical URI may be a relative one, you should better write:

   The target/canonical URI MAY:

   o  Be a relative URI (see [RFC3986], Section 4.2);

Ibid:

   The target/canonical URI SHOULD NOT designate:

   o  The source URI of a permanent redirect (for HTTP, this refers to
      Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]) or a "300 Multiple Choices" URI
      (Section 10.3.1 of [RFC2616])

Here probably a typo happened; so please change to:

   The target/canonical URI SHOULD NOT designate:

   o  The URI which is a source of a permanent redirect (for HTTP, this
      refers to 300 and 301 response codes, defined in Sections
      10.3.1 and 10.3.2 of RFC 2616 [RFC2616]);

Ibid:

   o  A URI that serves a 4xx error code (Section 10.4 of [RFC2616]).

Again, HTTP-centric approach.  There are many other application-layer protocols, for which URI schemes exist, and they aren't very likely to even have the same req/response model as HTTP has.  As this is only available in HTTP, I propose to exclude this bullet, unless you can reformulate it so that it doesn't use HTTP-only feature.

   o  The first page of a multi-page article or multi-page listing of
      items (since the first page is not a duplicate or a superset or
      the context URI).  For example, page2 and page3 of an article
      SHOULD NOT specify page1 as the canonical.

Here you may point to Section 6.12 of you reference [REC-html401-19991224], which specifies the 'start' relation (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/types.html#idx-link_type), used for this purpose.

In Section 5:

   2.  Permanent HTTP redirects (Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]), the
       traditional strong indicator that a URI's content has been
       permanently moved, could not be implemented in place of the
       canonical link relation.

Also too HTTP-centric approach.  The same as above applies.

References:

Why make RFC 2616 and HTML4 spec Normative references?  Shouldn't Informative be OK?

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

31.08.2011 1:21, Maile Ohye wrote:
Hi everyone, please let us know if you have additional feedback. After many rounds of helpful discussion, I think we're nearing submission. :) 

I hope to submit a publication request on Wednesday, September 7th, 2011.

Thanks!
Maile

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:41:45 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

       Title           : The Canonical Link Relation
       Author(s)       : Maile Ohye
                         Joachim Kupke
       Filename        : draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
       Pages           : 6
       Date            : 2011-07-30

  The canonical link relation, developed from [RFC5988] which indicates
  relationships between Internet links, specifies the preferred URI
  from a set of identical or vastly similar content accessible on
  multiple URIs.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

  Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Comments should be sent
  to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see
  &lt;https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss&gt;).


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss



_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--------------090406090607000400070606-- From julian.reschke@gmx.de Tue Aug 30 23:19:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6686D21F8C16 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:19:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.551, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kapDIXFOMOFc for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 12A4B21F8C13 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2011 06:20:55 -0000 Received: from p508FA8FA.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.168.250] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 31 Aug 2011 08:20:55 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19PRVQRklJPYcSr1MN81cFXlnsj3F5ZtBxHbUWkWh 3Sz42fv7m2Zyks Message-ID: <4E5DD2BF.40801@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:20:47 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev References: <20110829144145.31952.69055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E5D06EA.9040205@gmx.de> <4E5DB9B8.70006@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E5DB9B8.70006@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "link-relations@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [link-relations] [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:19:28 -0000 On 2011-08-31 06:34, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > ... > Section 3: > >> The target/canonical URI MAY: >> >> o Specify a URI Reference (see [RFC3986] Section 4.1) i.e., an >> absolute URI or a relative reference > > What you mean here? If you wanted to show that canonical URI may be a > relative one, you should better write: > >> The target/canonical URI MAY: >> >> o Be a relative URI (see [RFC3986], Section 4.2); The original text seems to be clearer to me. > Ibid: > >> o A URI that serves a 4xx error code (Section 10.4 of [RFC2616]). > > Again, HTTP-centric approach. There are many other application-layer > protocols, for which URI schemes exist, and they aren't very likely to > even have the same req/response model as HTTP has. As this is only > available in HTTP, I propose to exclude this bullet, unless you can > reformulate it so that it doesn't use HTTP-only feature. -1. This is useful information. Just because something is specific doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. >> o The first page of a multi-page article or multi-page listing of >> items (since the first page is not a duplicate or a superset or >> the context URI). For example, page2 and page3 of an article >> SHOULD NOT specify page1 as the canonical. > > Here you may point to Section 6.12 of you reference > [REC-html401-19991224], which specifies the 'start' relation > (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/types.html#idx-link_type), > used for this purpose. +-0. > In Section 5: > >> 2. Permanent HTTP redirects (Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]), the >> traditional strong indicator that a URI's content has been >> permanently moved, could not be implemented in place of the >> canonical link relation. > > Also too HTTP-centric approach. The same as above applies. -1 > References: > > Why make RFC 2616 and HTML4 spec Normative references? Shouldn't > Informative be OK? For 2616 is makes sense if there are normative constrains specific for HTTP. > ... Best regards, Julian From evnikita2@gmail.com Wed Aug 31 00:38:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E726F21F8C3E; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:38:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RG6jYPe0671H; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1DE21F8B9D; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so647303bka.31 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:40:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DzR0EZHtIBwLeexM4RT9AJ9R2zDuGbgw+aaFSePpxQo=; b=wfIyn7wBGXN0JyMw5Rj/VqoDQSiM4CuV0o2/PmOf/2LdML7LjRIJAkarHRuBQByXaB zvfZIdMBG/iMWg9EGfoHOMZ/ExaSmrvoZVgWWbm3GSqmSB3pyPKc5Pnh/Yajq/tmp42C WoPGwo5B9hN8GA10s/BHKpVQI1yOzi1KAUjLE= Received: by 10.204.155.85 with SMTP id r21mr76538bkw.64.1314776412254; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b17sm242310bkd.65.2011.08.31.00.40.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E5DE57B.8070801@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:40:43 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <20110829144145.31952.69055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E5D06EA.9040205@gmx.de> <4E5DB9B8.70006@gmail.com> <4E5DD2BF.40801@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4E5DD2BF.40801@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "link-relations@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [link-relations] [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:38:49 -0000 31.08.2011 9:20, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-08-31 06:34, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> ... >> Section 3: >> >>> The target/canonical URI MAY: >>> >>> o Specify a URI Reference (see [RFC3986] Section 4.1) i.e., an >>> absolute URI or a relative reference >> >> What you mean here? If you wanted to show that canonical URI may be a >> relative one, you should better write: >> >>> The target/canonical URI MAY: >>> >>> o Be a relative URI (see [RFC3986], Section 4.2); > > The original text seems to be clearer to me. It is already obvious that target URI must conform to RFC 3986 from RFC 5988: > Link = "Link" ":" #link-value > link-value = "<" URI-Reference">" *( ";" link-param ) and, correspondingly, the target URI *is* (rather than *MAY be*) . If the authors want to clarify that target URI may be relative, my proposed text is better. > >> Ibid: >> >>> o A URI that serves a 4xx error code (Section 10.4 of [RFC2616]). >> >> Again, HTTP-centric approach. There are many other application-layer >> protocols, for which URI schemes exist, and they aren't very likely to >> even have the same req/response model as HTTP has. As this is only >> available in HTTP, I propose to exclude this bullet, unless you can >> reformulate it so that it doesn't use HTTP-only feature. > > -1. This is useful information. Just because something is specific > doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. From Section 10.4 of RFC 2616: > The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the > client seems to have erred. So 4xx responses are used when something is wring with HTTP request. I doubt there are alternatives of such definition in *all* protocols for which the URI scheme has been specified. Eg., FTP doesn't alter error conditions caused by client or server; neither does TFTP and many others. We aren't defining the link relation fro 'http' and 'https' URIs only; it is theoretically to allow any scheme, including not yet defined. >> In Section 5: >> >>> 2. Permanent HTTP redirects (Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]), the >>> traditional strong indicator that a URI's content has been >>> permanently moved, could not be implemented in place of the >>> canonical link relation. >> >> Also too HTTP-centric approach. The same as above applies. > > -1 See above. > >> References: >> >> Why make RFC 2616 and HTML4 spec Normative references? Shouldn't >> Informative be OK? > > For 2616 is makes sense if there are normative constrains specific for > HTTP. See above as well. Why tie ourselves with HTTP only? Mykyta > > > ... > > Best regards, Julian >