Re: Request to AD-sponsor publication of draft-wilde-service-link-rel-06 and draft-wilde-sunset-header-06

I have a slight preference for taking this through the WG process, but
only because I think that is always better than AD sponsorship.  That
said, after looking at the content, these are well-written and simple
enough that any process they take should only be brief.

Seeing the proliferation of new link relations at around the same time
as new Prefer labels makes me wonder if we need a new "Prefer:
meta=minimal/full" option so that all that extra stuff can be
suppressed.  At some point header compression isn't good enough to
hold back the flood.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:06 PM Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>
> Dear HTTPBIS WG participants,
>
> I've been asked by Erik Wilde to AD-sponsor publication of the following
> 2 documents:
>
> 1) "Link Relation Types for Web Services":
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-service-link-rel/>
> 2) "The Sunset HTTP Header":
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-sunset-header/>
>
> I am soliciting feedback on these documents, in particular:
>
> a) Do people think that these are useful documents and that they should
> be published as RFCs? (Both statements of support and objections are
> appreciated. Feel free to send your replies directly to me.)
>
> b) If people think that these are useful contributions to the RFC
> series, does this WG wants to take one or both of them as WG items or is
> it Ok for me to just AD-sponsor them?
>
> Assuming response to publishing these 2 documents is positive, I am also
> looking for document shepherds to help out with reviews and publication
> process. If you never done this and want to learn, these are probably
> good documents to start with, as they are both short and relatively simple.
>
> Thank you,
> Alexey, as an ART Area Director.
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2018 22:50:54 UTC