Hi Mark, Thanks for your review.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 07:28:17PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Section 10.2 has a title of "Link Relations Registry" but the URL > given is "https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/ > rdap-extensions.xhtml" -- it looks like the intent is to register > link relations given the content of the entries, so the URL needs to > be corrected. This has been updated. > Assuming that's the case, I see that 'up' is already registered, so > that registration is not necessary. > > Both that and the remaining requests are extremely generic terms, > and so aren't appropriate to register in a specific protocol's > document; experience shows that doing so misleads readers to believe > that these terms are specific to that protocol and not useable > elsewhere. > > Instead, I'd suggest registering them in a separate, standalone > document, using generic descriptions that are broadly applicable; > your document can then refine their semantics in a specific context. > I suspect the HTTPAPI WG would be amenable to such work. > > Alternatively, you could register link relation types specific to > your application; for example, "rdap-up" and so forth. We've updated the registrations to be RDAP-specific, by prefixing them with "rdap-". > I also notice that you define compound link relation types, e.g., > "up-active" and "top-active". Consider defining a separate "active" > relation type (again, either generically, or specific to your > application, depending on your preferences), which can then be used > in combination with other types -- e.g., "top active" and "up > active". Similarly here, we've removed the "up-active" and "top-active" relations in favour of a single "rdap-active" relation, to be used in conjunction with "rdap-top" and "rdap-up". -Tom _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
