Subject: [dispatch] draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:35:35 +1000

I brought this up a long time ago in APPSAWG, before the Great Merger. For a while, I've been working on a bis of RFC5988 in the background.

The current document is:
  https://mnot.github.io/I-D/rfc5988bis/

Major differences are described at:
  https://mnot.github.io/I-D/rfc5988bis/#changes-from-rfc5988

Open issues are at:
  https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/rfc5988bis

What do people think is an appropriate venue for this work? 5988 was AD-sponsored, but my understanding is that this isn't a popular path any more, and 5988 has turned out to be fairly widely-used.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:53:02 +0900

For those on the dispatch list that haven't been part of the appswg, and 
for those (like me) who can't recite all the RFCs by heart, here's the 
title and abstract of the 'draft':

Title: Web Linking

Abstract:
This specification defines a way to indicate the relationships between 
resources on the Web (“links”) and the type of those relationships 
(“link relation types”).

It also defines the serialisation of such links in HTTP headers with the 
Link header field.

Mark, even if (as I had to find out by following links) this draft is 
about links, it would have been extremely helpful to have some 
additional information in-line, to save people a few clicks and help 
those who read this email on a (non-connected) plane.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2016/07/12 10:35, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> .
>