Summary: Needs a YES. Has 3 DISCUSSes. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.
I'd like to see the major issue raised by Elwyn in his Gen-ART review resolved before this document proceeds: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-core-links-json-07-genart-lc-davies-2017-04-25/
Elwyn's review contains a number of minor issues on which the authors are already engaging (thanks!). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-core-links-json-07-genart-lc-davies-2017-04-25/
A few sentences to address Mark's ARTART Directorate review would be helpful as well. -- this might have been fixed.
====================================================================== The protocol has technical flaws that will prevent it from working properly, or the description is unclear in such a way that the reader cannot understand it without ambiguity. ====================================================================== The document requires that the thirteen defined values MUST be encoded as integers. The document does not define what implementations are to do if they receive a CBOR object that does not conform to this encoding: is the parameter ignored? Is the entire link relation ignored? Do you reject the entire collection of link relations? Or do you just go ahead and parse it anyway, since the intended meaning is unambiguous (even if out of spec)? ====================================================================== The draft omits a normative reference necessary for its implementation, or cites such a reference merely informatively rather than normatively. ====================================================================== ISSUE 1: This document appears to use CDDL to define the formal schema for both the JSON and CBOR representations of its data format, although the CDDL document itself is cited only informatively. ISSUE 2: figure 1 shows an application of CDDL to define schema for JSON. It's not clear from a skim through the CDDL document that it can be used for JSON; it would appear that using it in this fashion would require additional text in this document to talk about how to apply CDDL to JSON, or waiting for some other document to do so.
The example in Figure 6 would benefit greatly by showing both the array encoding and "foo" encoding used in Figure 4 (including, in particular, the string -- rather than integer -- encoding of the "foo=3" parameter).
I did notice that " (Comment to be deleted before submitting this document to the IESG: This list should, again, be checked against relevant references at WGLC time.)" under Table 1 wasn't, in fact, deleted. Has the relevant check been made?
On a quick email scan, I gather that the discussion thread resulting from Mark's ART-ART review has not completely resolved, at least as of the time I reviewed the document. That probably needs to be resolved prior to progressing the draft.