LRDD (was Re: Setting TAG Priorities - Next steps)

Eran,

I'm thinking about what the TAG might do to prepare for a discussion
of LRDD, and what kind of discussion might be fruitful.

Here are the most recent drafts that I could find:

       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03  (March 23)
       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-01 (Feb 10)
       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 (Apr 17)

Since we've looked at these or their previous versions recently, I
don't see any reason to look again now. (Our F2F is June 23-25 and
past tomorrow I don't think people will have time to look at new
drafts.)

My feeling is that the TAG should just keep periodically checking
itself to see if it cares to influence any of these drafts in any way.
So far no one has had a lot to say.

As far as I'm concerned LRDD is in good hands and the TAG should
consider making a recommendation that people use it, once it's done. I
have in mind that we should say that LRDD should be used to
provide/find RDF, RDFa, etc. containing metadata (e.g. DC, foaf,
POWDER, ccREL), when the resource is a document, or information
intended to instruct regarding the interpretation of the request-URI,
for any kind of resource.  (But not to use Link: or host-meta as a
*substitute* for <link>, only as backup, and not to create any kind of
exception to the httpRange-14 rule.) As I understand it LRDD can be
used in conjunction with 303 (redundantly with Location:) and with
301/302/307 (for orthogonal metadata provision), yes?

I remember that Adam Barth raised some security issues with host-meta;
did these get ironed out to everyone's satisfaction?

Best
Jonathan

(Tracker: this is ISSUE-62)

Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 17:28:10 UTC