The Link-Template HTTP Header Field
draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-01
|
04 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-04.txt |
2024-04-01
|
04 | Mark Nottingham | New version approved |
2024-04-01
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham |
2024-04-01
|
04 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-15
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2024-02-15
|
03 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Feedback from incoming ART AD, Orie Steele: I'd prefer to see specific security considerations associated with "Display Strings", based on this MUST: "These … [Ballot comment] Feedback from incoming ART AD, Orie Steele: I'd prefer to see specific security considerations associated with "Display Strings", based on this MUST: "These Parameter values MUST be Strings, unless they contain non-ASCII characters, in which case they MUST be Display Strings. " ... and the following comment in the normative reference: "It is NOT RECOMMENDED that they be used in situations where a String (Section 3.3.3) or Token (Section 3.3.4) would be adequate, because Unicode has processing considerations (e.g., normalization) and security considerations (e.g., homograph attacks) that make it more difficult to handle correctly." |
2024-02-15
|
03 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-02-15
|
03 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] I see these were addressed in -03, apologies for not noticing that earlier. |
2024-02-15
|
03 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Paul Wouters has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2024-02-15
|
03 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2024-02-14
|
03 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-02-14
|
03 | Dhruv Dhody | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list. |
2024-02-13
|
03 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2024-02-13
|
03 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot discuss] Please address the questions raised in the genart review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-httpapi-link-template-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2023-05-16/ |
2024-02-13
|
03 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-02-12
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-02-12
|
03 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi Mark, Thanks for this document. I have one minor comment: (1) p 1, sec 1. Introduction This specification defines a HTTP … [Ballot comment] Hi Mark, Thanks for this document. I have one minor comment: (1) p 1, sec 1. Introduction This specification defines a HTTP header field [HTTP] for conveying templates for links in the headers of a HTTP message. It is complimentary to the Link header field defined in Section 3 of [WEB-LINKING], which carries links directly. As a minor comment, it wasn't entirely clear to me what these HTTP templates are used for and why it is helpful to carry them in the HTTP headers (as opposed to the body). Hence please consider whether adding a paragraph to the intro, highlighting potential use cases, or perhaps giving an example of what is useful for may be helpful to readers. Regards, Rob |
2024-02-12
|
03 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2024-02-12
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Nice and clear shepherd write-up for a useful document (even to my non-expert eyes). Minor regret: the companion documents in other WG are … [Ballot comment] Nice and clear shepherd write-up for a useful document (even to my non-expert eyes). Minor regret: the companion documents in other WG are not on the same telechat date. |
2024-02-12
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-02-10
|
03 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-02-09
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Radia Perlman for the SECDIR review. |
2024-02-09
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2024-02-07
|
03 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-02-07
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2024-01-31
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-02-15 |
2024-01-31
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot has been issued |
2024-01-31
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-01-31
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-01-31
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2024-01-31
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-01-30
|
03 | (System) | Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed) |
2024-01-30
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-01-30
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-01-30
|
03 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-03.txt |
2024-01-30
|
03 | Mark Nottingham | New version approved |
2024-01-30
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham |
2024-01-30
|
03 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-19
|
02 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-08-19
|
02 | Barry Leiba | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Julian Reschke was marked no-response |
2023-05-30
|
02 | David Dong | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2023-05-30
|
02 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2023-05-29
|
02 | (System) | Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Mark Nottingham (IESG state changed) |
2023-05-29
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2023-05-29
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2023-05-26
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-05-24
|
02 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2023-05-24
|
02 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/ a single new registration is to be made as follows: Field Name: Link-Template Template: Status: permanent Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Specialist |
2023-05-24
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-05-24
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. |
2023-05-18
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2023-05-18
|
02 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
2023-05-16
|
02 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. Sent review to list. |
2023-05-16
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-05-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, darrel@tavis.ca, draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template@ietf.org, httpapi-chairs@ietf.org, httpapi@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-05-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, darrel@tavis.ca, draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template@ietf.org, httpapi-chairs@ietf.org, httpapi@ietf.org, rsalz@akamai.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (The Link-Template HTTP Header Field) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Building Blocks for HTTP APIs WG (httpapi) to consider the following document: - 'The Link-Template HTTP Header Field' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-05-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification defines the Link-Template HTTP header field, providing a means for describing the structure of a link between two resources, so that new links can be generated. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Last call was requested |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2023-05-15
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-03-26
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-03-26
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | Shepherding AD changed to Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-03-26
|
02 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2023-03-26
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-03-26
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | Shepherding AD changed to Murray Kucherawy |
2023-03-17
|
02 | Rich Salz | Notification list changed to rsalz@akamai.com, darrel@tavis.ca from rsalz@akamai.com |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? A few "prominent in the field" people were those most active in the discussions. Consensus to adopt was strong, WGLC received no comments. There was little change over the course of the revisions; this is probably because it was trying to solve a single problem, and the author is an expert. There was interest in using this. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. Some found the `var-base` concept confusing, but it does have an example and should be familiar to those involved in URI's. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? N/A. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Yes. Several people see the need to be able to "templatize" HTTP link relations. The authors (and many of those who reviewed and comment) are active members of both HTTPAPI and HTTP-BIS working groups. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? In the view of the Chairs (one of whom is the Shepherd) this is complete, understandable, and ready to submit for publication. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? It's all fine. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed standard. As this adds an HTTP header field, that is appropriate. Yes, the desired state is properly reflected. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. The author says he is not aware of any IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics is now RFC 9110; this can be corrected in AUTH48. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. All good. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? There are none. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This adds a new HTTP header field into the registry, with semantics described in the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. None. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | Responsible AD changed to Francesca Palombini |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | Notification list changed to rsalz@akamai.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | Document shepherd changed to Rich Salz |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Rich Salz | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? A few "prominent in the field" people were those most active in the discussions. Consensus to adopt was strong, WGLC received no comments. There was little change over the course of the revisions; this is probably because it was trying to solve a single problem, and the author is an expert. There was interest in using this. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. Some found the `var-base` concept confusing, but it does have an example and should be familiar to those involved in URI's. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? N/A. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Yes. Several people see the need to be able to "templatize" HTTP link relations. The authors (and many of those who reviewed and comment) are active members of both HTTPAPI and HTTP-BIS working groups. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? In the view of the Chairs (one of whom is the Shepherd) this is complete, understandable, and ready to submit for publication. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? It's all fine. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed standard. As this adds an HTTP header field, that is appropriate. Yes, the desired state is properly reflected. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. The author says he is not aware of any IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics is now RFC 9110; this can be corrected in AUTH48. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. All good. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? There are none. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This adds a new HTTP header field into the registry, with semantics described in the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. None. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-02-01
|
02 | Rich Salz | The Author believes this document is ready for working group last call. Having re-read it, at least one of the WG chairs agrees :) Please … The Author believes this document is ready for working group last call. Having re-read it, at least one of the WG chairs agrees :) Please reaad the document -- it's really short! -- and post any comments to the mailing list. Indications of support for advancing this to the IESG would be helpful. Thanks. |
2023-02-01
|
02 | Rich Salz | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-01-31
|
02 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-02.txt |
2023-01-31
|
02 | Mark Nottingham | New version approved |
2023-01-31
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham |
2023-01-31
|
02 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-29
|
01 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-01.txt |
2022-12-29
|
01 | Mark Nottingham | New version approved |
2022-12-29
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham |
2022-12-29
|
01 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-07
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-04-29
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-04-29
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-04-29
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | This document now replaces draft-nottingham-link-template instead of None |
2022-04-29
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-httpapi-link-template-00.txt |
2022-04-29
|
00 | Rich Salz | WG -00 approved |
2022-04-28
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | Set submitter to "Mark Nottingham ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: httpapi-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-04-28
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |