[core] AD review of draft-ietf-core-links-json-07.txt

[Alexey Melnikov]

Hi,

I have requested an extra review to check that use of Link relations is
correct.

I also found a small cut & paste error:

In 3.2:

+------------------------------+-------+
| Media type | ID |
+------------------------------+-------+
| application/link-format+cbor | TBD64 |
| application/link-format+cbor | TBD54 |
+------------------------------+-------+

I think one of these should be +json.

As I have no other comments, I've initiated IETF LC for this document.

Thank you,

Alexey

[Carsten Bormann]

Post by Alexey Melnikov
| application/link-format+cbor | TBD64 |
| application/link-format+cbor | TBD54 |

Indeed, this registration should be

| application/link-format+cbor | TBD64 |
| application/link-format+json | TBD54 |

(Listed in alphabetical, not the suggested numerical order.
Note that 60 is application/cbor and 50 is application/json, and then 40 is application/link-format, so there is some mnemonic value to using 64 and 54 as suggested numbers — at least to my twisted mind :-)

Grüße, Carsten

[Michael Koster]

60 is application/cbor and
50 is application/json, and then
40 is application/link-format

therefore:

| application/link-format+cbor | TBD100 |
| application/link-format+json | TBD90 |

;-)

Post by Carsten Bormann

Post by Alexey Melnikov
| application/link-format+cbor | TBD64 |
| application/link-format+cbor | TBD54 |

Indeed, this registration should be
| application/link-format+cbor | TBD64 |
| application/link-format+json | TBD54 |
(Listed in alphabetical, not the suggested numerical order.
Note that 60 is application/cbor and 50 is application/json, and then 40 is application/link-format, so there is some mnemonic value to using 64 and 54 as suggested numbers — at least to my twisted mind :-)
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
core mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core