Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "(in the sense of URI)" here. Also note that we do not see "URI" used elsewhere in the document. Original: The Deprecation HTTP response header field is used to signal to consumers of a resource (in the sense of URI) that the resource will be or has been deprecated. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We suggest updating "and possibly ways" to improve readability of the text. Also, this sentence includes both "Additionally" and "additional". May we replace "additional" with "further" or something similar? Original: Additionally, the deprecation link relation can be used to link to a resource that provides additional information about planned or existing deprecation, and possibly ways in which client application developers can best manage deprecation. Perhaps: Additionally, the deprecation link relation can be used to link to a resource that provides further information about planned or existing deprecation. It may also provide ways in which client application developers can best manage deprecation. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to update this sentence to clarify what the document uses? Note that [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] has been published as an RFC 9651, so we updated the reference entry accordingly. We used [RFC9651] as the citation, bet us know if you prefer to use [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]. Original: This document uses "Structured Field Values for HTTP" ([STRUCTURED-FIELDS]) to specify syntax and parsing of date values. Perhaps: This document uses the mechanisms defined in [RFC9651] to specify syntax and parsing of date values. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] May we we update the text starting with "and possibly..." as follows to improve the flow of the sentence? Original: This can happen before the actual deprecation, to make a deprecation policy discoverable, or after deprecation, when there may be documentation about the deprecation, and possibly documentation of how to manage it. Perhaps: This can happen before the actual deprecation to make a deprecation policy discoverable or after deprecation when there may be documentation about the deprecation and how to manage it. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to update "under which circumstances and with which policies" for readability as follows? Original: This may be the documentation explaining under which circumstances and with which policies deprecation might take place. Perhaps: This may be the documentation explaining the circumstances in which deprecation might take place and the deprecation policies. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "allowing consumers to still" to improve clarity? Original: The presence of a Deprecation header field in response is not meant to signal a change in the meaning or function of a resource in the context, allowing consumers to still use the resource in the same way as they did before the resource was declared deprecated. Perhaps: The presence of a Deprecation header field in a response is not meant to signal a change in the meaning or function of a resource in the context; consumers can still use the resource in the same way as they did before the resource was declared deprecated. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review "resource that is documentation" here. Should this be updated to "resource documentation", "documentation", or something else? If any changes are made, we will ask IANA to update the "Link Relation Types" accordingly prior to publication (link to registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations). Original: Description: Refers to a resource that is documentation (intended for human consumption) about the deprecation of the link's context. Perhaps: Description: Refers to resource documentation (intended for human consumption) about the deprecation of the link's context. Or: Description: Refers to documentation (intended for human consumption) about the deprecation of the link's context. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the text starting with "even though one might..." to improve sentence clarity? Original: Deprecated resources function as they would have without sending the deprecation header field, even though one might consider non-functional details such as making them progressively less efficient with longer response time for example. Perhaps: Deprecated resources function as they would have without sending the Deprecation header field, even though non-functional details may be affected (e.g., they have less efficiency and longer response times). --> 9) <!-- [rfced] What does "it" refer to in this sentence? Original: In cases where the Deprecation header field value is a date in the future, it can lead to information that otherwise might not be available. Perhaps: In cases where the Deprecation header field value is a date in the future, information might become available that would not be available otherwise. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Some sentences in the document mention deprecation of the resource while others mention deprecation of the context. Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. deprecation of "resource": resource will be or has been deprecated resource in context of the message is or will be deprecated resource in context has been deprecated deprecation of the resource deprecation of that specific resource deprecation of a resource(s) deprecation of "context": resource context will be deprecated resource context has been deprecated deprecation of the context deprecation of the resource context deprecation of the link's context Please also review use of "context" and let us know if any updates are needed for consistency and clarity. Examples: resource in context of the message resource context resource in context resource in the context link's context --> 11) <!-- [rfced] We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. Deprecation HTTP response header field Deprecation HTTP header field Deprecation response header field Deprecation header field Sunset HTTP header field Sunset header field deprecation link relation "deprecation" link relation type relation type deprecation deprecation link relation type resource documentation resource's documentation deprecation information deprecation-related information --> 12) <!-- [rfced] We see inconsistent use of <tt> in this document. Please review the specific questions below. Note: In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> is output in fixed-width font; in the txt output, there are no changes to the font. a) For header fields, we see use of both <tt> and no <tt>. See examples below. Which form do you prefer? <tt>Deprecation</tt> header field Deprecation header field <tt>Link</tt> header field Link header field <tt>Sunset</tt> header field Sunset HTTP header field b) For the link relation type, we see use of <tt>, quotation marks, and no <tt> or quotation marks. Which form do you prefer? <tt>deprecation</tt> link relation type "deprecation" link relation deprecation link relation --> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element in the xml file. Specifically, should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another element? --> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/st/rv On Mar 3, 2025, at 1:39 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/03/03 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or moved): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745-alt-diff.html Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9745-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9745 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9745 (draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header-09) Title : The Deprecation HTTP Header Field Author(s) : S. Dalal, E. Wilde WG Chair(s) : Darrel Miller, Rich Salz Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
