Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-06
review-ietf-httpapi-linkset-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2022-01-10-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-06
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2022-01-10
IETF LC End Date: 2022-01-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Technically I don't have any major issue.  However, I do have a minor
technical, one administrative, and some editorial, comments.

Major issues:

Q1: The draft is intended to be published as Informational RFC. That sounds a
little strange to me. Could you please explain what the reason is?

Minor issues:

Q2: The document defines the "application/linkset+json" format, and indicates
that it can also be used for JSON-LD. What is the reason for not defining a
separate format for JSON-LD? Separate formats ("application/json" and
"application/ld+json") have previously been defined.

Nits/editorial comments:

Q3: The document has long sentences like "One serializes links in the same
format as used in HTTP the Link header field". Couldn't one just say "based on
the syntax of the HTTP Link header field", or something like that?

Q4: The document talks about "document format". People familiar with HTTP are
probably familiar with that terminology, but I think it would be good to add a
reference on first occurrence.

Q5: In Section 1, you talk about serializing links as JSON objects. Should it
be JSON strings, or something? JSON object is not a serialization.