RE: HTTP Link Use cases

Hi Phil

Thanks for the gentle reminder of the need for action. ISSUE-238 and
ACTION-703 both have a direct relevance to this, and both are
essentially down to me to chase. I hadn't forgotten our call, or either
of these actions, it's just that I have been running around like a
headless chicken since the Seoul F2F and have only just managed to get
my head back above water (if that is not too grotesque a mixed

There will definitely be input from BP on this, but there are definitely
only 24 hours in each day.


Jo Rabin
mTLD (

mTLD Top Level Domain Limited is a private limited company incorporated
and registered in the Republic of Ireland with registered number 398040
and registered office at Arthur Cox Building, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: 17 March 2008 09:53
> To: Public MWBP
> Subject: HTTP Link Use cases
> Jo and I discussed this on the phone the other day so this note is
> a) to remind him of that conversation;
> b) alert other members of the group to the issue.
> We have discussed the potential usefulness of the HTTP Link Header in
> the mobile space in past meetings (I recall doing so most recently at
> TPAC last year). The issue continues to surface and resurface on the
> IETF/W3C HTTP group and has lead to some very recent and extensive
> discussion. Happy Halpin kicked things off this time [1] and this lead
> to mark Nottingham breathing new life into his draft [2]. I chimed in
> with the POWDER use case [3]. In between these are messages from the
> likes of Roy Fielding and Julian Reschke.
> The bulk of the discussion centred on the need for/best approach to
> providing an HTTP Profile header, i.e. an extensible and unambiguous
> to extend relationship types. It's not as easy as it sounds...
> If the MWBP in general, and the CTTF in particular, wishes to support
> the reinstatement of HTTP Link and comment on the wider discussion.
> is the time when such an input can have most effect.
> Cheers
> Phil.
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 11:16:35 UTC