Skip to main content

Web Host Metadata
RFC 6415

Yes

(Peter Saint-Andre)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 17 and is now closed.

Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-07-14)
 The JRD document format - a general purpose XRD 1.0 represenation -

s/represenation/representation/
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-07-11)
  The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnanon 26-Jun-2011 points out that
  this document has two downrefs that have not been called out in the
  writeup: RFC 2818 and RFC 4627.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-07-11)
It's okay to use "NOT RECOMMENDED" in the context of RFC 2119, but you need to add it to the notation section:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
   in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Making this change would fix an ID nit.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2011-07-13)
1) The term "host" is odd here, this is really talking about meta-data
for what I would call a web server.  Since a single physical host can
serve up many virtual hosts with Apache for example, that'd be worth
clarifying in case someone thinks that host-wide refers to the physical
device.

(2) Intro: "This often leads to..." Just wondering - is there documented
evidence of this happening often somewhere?

(3) Intro: the description of link templates is entirely opaque to me.
(Actually, I think a rewrite of the entire section would be good.) An
example would help but I don't get the "hub" example in 1.1 - you say that
link templates are for more fine-grained information, but this one is not.
Is that just a badly chosen example? (When I understand this I may be able
to suggest a better wording.)

(4) 1.1.1 - you say "using an HTTP GET request: " but then present what I
think is a response.

(5) 1.1.1 - I don't get the reason for presenting the "together" version
of the URI specific meta-data. I think showing this as an xml document
just confuses, unless there's a way to make a request that leads to this
as a response, which you don't say.

(6) 1.1.1 - I don't get what having a higher priority means for the order
of links and you don't say.

(7) Section 2 - grammar: s/The decision which protocol is used to obtain
the host-meta document have significant security ramifications as
described in Section 5./The decision as to which protocol is used to
obtain the host-meta document can have significant security ramifications
as described in Section 5./

(8) "only canonical representation" is superfluous s/only//
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()