From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sat Jun 2 04:01:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA1E21F8A02 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:01:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.491, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NPFnMVHrSqDO for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F3DF621F89FE for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Jun 2012 11:01:56 -0000 Received: from p54BB353B.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [84.187.53.59] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 02 Jun 2012 13:01:56 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18RvSV80yUR2Qq4Y2d/el2zajEREUulQeBQV1vgI0 HGYuNrnRn4Kt5y Message-ID: <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:01:55 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Mike Kelly , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:01:59 -0000 On 2012-06-01 03:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: > We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". See: > > > Cheers, > ... I note that we wouldn't need "inv-by" if RFC 5988 didn't deprecate "rev". Anyway, would it make sense to make the two names more consistent, such as "inv" and "inv-by", *or* "invalidates" and "invalidated-by"? Best regards, Julian From mnot@mnot.net Sat Jun 2 04:24:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DE021F8608 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Br+MXWl0ddEs for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DCA21F85B5 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.203.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82F7E22E1EB; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:24:37 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Mike Kelly , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:24:49 -0000 On 02/06/2012, at 9:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-01 03:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". = See: >> >>=20 >> Cheers, >> ... >=20 > I note that we wouldn't need "inv-by" if RFC 5988 didn't deprecate = "rev". Yes, but it did so with good reason, and this is the recommended = approach now. > Anyway, would it make sense to make the two names more consistent, = such as "inv" and "inv-by", *or* "invalidates" and "invalidated-by"? That's what we originally had, but invalidated-by was judged to waste = bytes, whereas invalidated didn't seem so bad. YMMV. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From jrn@st-andrews.ac.uk Sat Jun 2 08:43:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749EB21F858D for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:43:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d4ttVXtHjhAJ for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wallace.st-andrews.ac.uk (wallace.st-andrews.ac.uk [138.251.30.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B188A21F8577 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:43:15 -0700 (PDT) X-StAndrews-MailScanner-From: jrn@st-andrews.ac.uk X-StAndrews-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.9, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90) X-StAndrews-MailScanner: No virus detected X-StAndrews-MailScanner-ID: q52Fh94W006438 X-StAndrews-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information Received: from [192.168.1.68] (94-194-232-105.zone8.bethere.co.uk [94.194.232.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by wallace.st-andrews.ac.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id q52Fh94W006438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:43:10 GMT Message-ID: <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:43:02 +0100 From: J Ross Nicoll User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: link-relations@ietf.org References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:43:16 -0000 On 02/06/2012 12:24, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Anyway, would it make sense to make the two names more consistent, such as "inv" and "inv-by", *or* "invalidates" and "invalidated-by"? > > That's what we originally had, but invalidated-by was judged to waste bytes, whereas invalidated didn't seem so bad. YMMV. I think having them consistent is a much better idea, and personally I think 'invalidated-by' is the better option. I'm imagining some poor newbie staring at a web page thinking "Invisible by? Invulnerable by? Inventory by?"... -- J Ross Nicoll From derhoermi@gmx.net Sun Jun 3 10:05:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B732A21F84FF for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:05:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EljZYpVSrEQu for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7351521F84D8 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jun 2012 17:05:43 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-222-139-216.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.222.139.216] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 03 Jun 2012 19:05:43 +0200 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/qTXdxskHq/b560gWv4JSYS8W3UTgZnVFci4yqJc DmlUZ9J61fI55E From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: J Ross Nicoll Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:05:48 +0200 Message-ID: References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:05:50 -0000 * J Ross Nicoll wrote: >I think having them consistent is a much better idea, and personally I >think 'invalidated-by' is the better option. I'm imagining some poor >newbie staring at a web page thinking "Invisible by? Invulnerable by? >Inventory by?"... I second this. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From mnot@mnot.net Sun Jun 3 17:54:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3932D21F87C3 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:54:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZHEtWv36jhjg for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B36A21F87BE for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.203.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E68222E1F4; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:53:48 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:54:01 -0000 It's common in deployments I've worked with to have a fairly large = number of these relationships; saving the bytes matters due to = implementation limits on header length. Cheers, On 04/06/2012, at 3:05 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * J Ross Nicoll wrote: >> I think having them consistent is a much better idea, and personally = I=20 >> think 'invalidated-by' is the better option. I'm imagining some poor=20= >> newbie staring at a web page thinking "Invisible by? Invulnerable by?=20= >> Inventory by?"... >=20 > I second this. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From derhoermi@gmx.net Sun Jun 3 18:02:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1599D21F87DB for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:02:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfpHdIelXWXg for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CE16521F87C3 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Jun 2012 01:02:38 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-222-139-216.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.222.139.216] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 04 Jun 2012 03:02:38 +0200 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX196tAxEZW16ZKrhq4oKM2zZvhRn6+U/TuTNFPmLg3 7EYhmMjrsTNZL3 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Mark Nottingham Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:02:43 +0200 Message-ID: References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:02:41 -0000 * Mark Nottingham wrote: >It's common in deployments I've worked with to have a fairly large >number of these relationships; saving the bytes matters due to >implementation limits on header length. An option would be to make it incomprehensibly short, say "iv" and "ib" so people would know they have to look it up without making assumptions about what it could mean. Or we could try finding some suitable synonym, say "nixes". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From mnot@mnot.net Sun Jun 3 18:06:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2A221F87E5 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:06:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.974 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.375, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8EckxbyoXFt7 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B8221F87E0 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.203.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 538A022E1EB; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:06:27 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <2B860886-3303-43DA-B646-5E144E4D2F06@mnot.net> References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:06:35 -0000 On 04/06/2012, at 11:02 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Mark Nottingham wrote: >> It's common in deployments I've worked with to have a fairly large >> number of these relationships; saving the bytes matters due to >> implementation limits on header length. > > An option would be to make it incomprehensibly short, say "iv" and "ib" > so people would know they have to look it up without making assumptions > about what it could mean. Or we could try finding some suitable synonym, > say "nixes". No, I'd prefer the bikeshed to be blue, please. :) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From derhoermi@gmx.net Sun Jun 3 18:15:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4AA21F879D for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:15:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id trWd1Zwz6lJR for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4AC5C21F8575 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Jun 2012 01:15:05 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-222-139-216.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.222.139.216] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 04 Jun 2012 03:15:05 +0200 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19gm24ejBFgU0DxjRV9OrWKjqLe+10B0ZIH0rQLqo A8k1OpaGA9t3PH From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Mark Nottingham Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:15:11 +0200 Message-ID: References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> <2B860886-3303-43DA-B646-5E144E4D2F06@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <2B860886-3303-43DA-B646-5E144E4D2F06@mnot.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:15:08 -0000 * Mark Nottingham wrote: >On 04/06/2012, at 11:02 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> * Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> It's common in deployments I've worked with to have a fairly large >>> number of these relationships; saving the bytes matters due to >>> implementation limits on header length. >> >> An option would be to make it incomprehensibly short, say "iv" and "ib" >> so people would know they have to look it up without making assumptions >> about what it could mean. Or we could try finding some suitable synonym, >> say "nixes". > >No, I'd prefer the bikeshed to be blue, please. Well, if you, in your role as Expert Reviewer, think people should not try to find the best names they can come up with when proposing or re- viewing new link relations, by all means, do say so. I don't like the combination of "invalidates" and "inv-by" and, as it is, I think we should at least try to come up with something better before accepting the proposal. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From mnot@mnot.net Sun Jun 3 18:19:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A962821F8779 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:19:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZWV0zbT3L9X for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03F721F848F for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.203.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 288B622E1F4; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:19:41 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> <2B860886-3303-43DA-B646-5E144E4D2F06@mnot.net> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:19:48 -0000 On 04/06/2012, at 11:15 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 04/06/2012, at 11:02 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>> * Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> It's common in deployments I've worked with to have a fairly large >>>> number of these relationships; saving the bytes matters due to >>>> implementation limits on header length. >>>=20 >>> An option would be to make it incomprehensibly short, say "iv" and = "ib" >>> so people would know they have to look it up without making = assumptions >>> about what it could mean. Or we could try finding some suitable = synonym, >>> say "nixes". >>=20 >> No, I'd prefer the bikeshed to be blue, please. >=20 > Well, if you, in your role as Expert Reviewer, think people should not > try to find the best names they can come up with when proposing or re- > viewing new link relations, by all means, do say so. I'm just a registry user for this one. That said, if I *were* reviewing this one, I'd say that it's not the = role of the experts to impose restrictions upon names other than = mandated by the RFC. They can make suggestions and work with = registrants, of course, but they're just that - suggestions. > I don't like the > combination of "invalidates" and "inv-by" and, as it is, I think we > should at least try to come up with something better before accepting > the proposal. It's not the role of a registry to act as a gatekeeper or protocol = purity review board. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From mnot@mnot.net Sun Jun 3 18:22:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E249121F87F8 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.893 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iZE8d9Mabo9L for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7343021F87F4 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.203.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 074F122E1F4; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:22:10 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> <2B860886-3303-43DA-B646-5E144E4D2F06@mnot.net> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:22:16 -0000 On 04/06/2012, at 11:19 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > It's not the role of a registry to act as a gatekeeper or protocol = purity review board. ... and yes, I realise I may have to eat these words when something that = I don't like the details of comes along. That's how it should be. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From derhoermi@gmx.net Sun Jun 3 18:42:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6E921F87AD for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxUUwJ9yUbB9 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5830821F87A7 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Jun 2012 01:42:08 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-222-139-216.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.222.139.216] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 04 Jun 2012 03:42:08 +0200 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+HHCIiD3GH8NJf7kmDqAsnRpwi6byq8SVWzb8Jil Dav+PV4oQFj2a1 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Mark Nottingham Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:42:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> <2B860886-3303-43DA-B646-5E144E4D2F06@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:42:10 -0000 * Mark Nottingham wrote: >On 04/06/2012, at 11:15 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> * Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> On 04/06/2012, at 11:02 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>>> * Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>>> It's common in deployments I've worked with to have a fairly large >>>>> number of these relationships; saving the bytes matters due to >>>>> implementation limits on header length. >>>> >>>> An option would be to make it incomprehensibly short, say "iv" and "ib" >>>> so people would know they have to look it up without making assumptions >>>> about what it could mean. Or we could try finding some suitable synonym, >>>> say "nixes". >>> >>> No, I'd prefer the bikeshed to be blue, please. >> >> Well, if you, in your role as Expert Reviewer, think people should not >> try to find the best names they can come up with when proposing or re- >> viewing new link relations, by all means, do say so. > >I'm just a registry user for this one. > >That said, if I *were* reviewing this one, I'd say that it's not the >role of the experts to impose restrictions upon names other than >mandated by the RFC. They can make suggestions and work with >registrants, of course, but they're just that - suggestions. It's a matter of what kind of discussions you would like to see on this list in your role as Expert Reviewer. If you think people should not argue about whether there is some better combination of names than the proposed "invalidates" and "inv-by", that is fine by me; if you think it is reasonable and useful to argue about that, then I think it would be inappropriate to invoke "the bikeshed" as a counter-argument. So, should we stop arguing about "trivial" naming preferences on this list? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From mnot@mnot.net Sun Jun 3 18:46:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCFC21F877D for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.862 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g8PJWiCl9h3r for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70DC21F8771 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.203.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B08A22E1EB; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:46:24 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <93E8964D-31AE-45A5-8E0E-FB73D4A7F8F2@mnot.net> References: <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FCA3486.8060508@st-andrews.ac.uk> <327BC3B1-99B4-454F-A5A2-4C0EBAA1385D@mnot.net> <2B860886-3303-43DA-B646-5E144E4D2F06@mnot.net> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:46:32 -0000 On 04/06/2012, at 11:42 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 04/06/2012, at 11:15 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>> * Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> On 04/06/2012, at 11:02 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>>>> * Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>>>> It's common in deployments I've worked with to have a fairly = large >>>>>> number of these relationships; saving the bytes matters due to >>>>>> implementation limits on header length. >>>>>=20 >>>>> An option would be to make it incomprehensibly short, say "iv" and = "ib" >>>>> so people would know they have to look it up without making = assumptions >>>>> about what it could mean. Or we could try finding some suitable = synonym, >>>>> say "nixes". >>>>=20 >>>> No, I'd prefer the bikeshed to be blue, please. >>>=20 >>> Well, if you, in your role as Expert Reviewer, think people should = not >>> try to find the best names they can come up with when proposing or = re- >>> viewing new link relations, by all means, do say so. >>=20 >> I'm just a registry user for this one. >>=20 >> That said, if I *were* reviewing this one, I'd say that it's not the >> role of the experts to impose restrictions upon names other than >> mandated by the RFC. They can make suggestions and work with >> registrants, of course, but they're just that - suggestions. >=20 > It's a matter of what kind of discussions you would like to see on = this > list in your role as Expert Reviewer. If you think people should not > argue about whether there is some better combination of names than the > proposed "invalidates" and "inv-by", that is fine by me; if you think = it > is reasonable and useful to argue about that, then I think it would be > inappropriate to invoke "the bikeshed" as a counter-argument. So, = should > we stop arguing about "trivial" naming preferences on this list? I don't have a problem with suggestions. Arguing is probably too strong. Specifically, language such as "we should at least try to come up with = something better before accepting the proposal" will lead some to = believe that this list has more power than it does, and that's not a = good thing, IMO. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From julian.reschke@gmx.de Thu Jun 14 06:06:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E887E21F868A for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:06:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.703, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URRmLXwZ31+J for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5882E21F8671 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2012 13:06:11 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp070) with SMTP; 14 Jun 2012 15:06:11 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18SugUmvvoS2sXrN9Eq3d8vv7E6D7A5eu4pONMNxi 7wMnrOQHGzzscs Message-ID: <4FD9E1C1.6030706@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:06:09 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120604 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org, Mike Kelly Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:06:23 -0000 On 2012-06-02 13:24, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 02/06/2012, at 9:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2012-06-01 03:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". See: >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> ... >> >> I note that we wouldn't need "inv-by" if RFC 5988 didn't deprecate "rev". > > Yes, but it did so with good reason, and this is the recommended approach now. > >> Anyway, would it make sense to make the two names more consistent, such as "inv" and "inv-by", *or* "invalidates" and "invalidated-by"? > > > That's what we originally had, but invalidated-by was judged to waste bytes, whereas invalidated didn't seem so bad. YMMV. Clarifying: what I'm unhappy with is not each of the two names, but their combination. With respect to wasting bytes: understood, but as far as I can tell, these link header field instances only occur on responses to write operations, so I'm not sure how a few bytes more per invalided resource is a problem. Best regards, Julian From julian.reschke@gmx.de Thu Jun 14 06:10:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A82721F86B8 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.055 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QWdM9Fn8la0G for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1527A21F869F for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2012 13:10:17 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 14 Jun 2012 15:10:17 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/mvgZvrFDmUkkwMjWVJuh0Twr+4OY1dwJw+UX7u+ zyRkl7ubgvYa3R Message-ID: <4FD9E2B6.6070308@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:10:14 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120604 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FD9E1C1.6030706@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4FD9E1C1.6030706@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Mike Kelly , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:10:22 -0000 On 2012-06-14 15:06, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-02 13:24, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> On 02/06/2012, at 9:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> On 2012-06-01 03:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". >>>> See: >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> ... >>> >>> I note that we wouldn't need "inv-by" if RFC 5988 didn't deprecate >>> "rev". >> >> Yes, but it did so with good reason, and this is the recommended >> approach now. >> >>> Anyway, would it make sense to make the two names more consistent, >>> such as "inv" and "inv-by", *or* "invalidates" and "invalidated-by"? >> >> >> That's what we originally had, but invalidated-by was judged to waste >> bytes, whereas invalidated didn't seem so bad. YMMV. > > Clarifying: what I'm unhappy with is not each of the two names, but > their combination. > > With respect to wasting bytes: understood, but as far as I can tell, > these link header field instances only occur on responses to write > operations, so I'm not sure how a few bytes more per invalided resource > is a problem. > ... Or is it that "inv-by" will occur on responses to simple GET operations? In which case I see your point, but would then argue to make both relation names short to stay consistent. Best regards, Julian From mikekelly321@gmail.com Thu Jun 14 06:10:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88CA21F86BB for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3RnrkZ8oe4-N for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F66521F85D7 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so1352252obb.31 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ok0RDAivch3JuS8d/hsboESY4TifO2mf8qWhfbPeNTA=; b=Pwui01B0aGzDTGR9IBTk9HBZ3/dexXi7BbsfmZ7Jg5fHiylqJJ/Sdoind0QDBzRAOl cL2F5RkddoOtdr2KHKaL4Nm7qRxsJ6ZEuS1HIsZBvqYA8u/2u81fC4LhkNLnL7C+ihXv NREPEKnr45fPS7iHlX2scqw27AMwBhbSlLieC2yqeUGrqV9D81JVpd3bcER94WY/jmzR fAPk1UCv3yydkqxgh/f/PRj/j29PtD4b/S4BDVXOShXZt0CJWBxONI9DoAWOa+KIHEaS LHBqXBO/aswSfrG5dt/Hvgssdf2ZirozceLj0aEmIbKGIaVuIPmI7xOcAd1MP2R5FTAZ QFFg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.110.10 with SMTP id hw10mr1750463obb.61.1339679457797; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.28.195 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:10:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FD9E1C1.6030706@gmx.de> References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> <4FC9F2A3.4000002@gmx.de> <4FD9E1C1.6030706@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:10:57 +0100 Message-ID: From: Mike Kelly To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Mark Nottingham , Mike Kelly , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0000 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Julian Reschke wro= te: > On 2012-06-02 13:24, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> >> On 02/06/2012, at 9:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> On 2012-06-01 03:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> >>>> We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". >>>> See: >>>> =A0 >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> ... >>> >>> >>> I note that we wouldn't need "inv-by" if RFC 5988 didn't deprecate "rev= ". >> >> >> Yes, but it did so with good reason, and this is the recommended approac= h >> now. >> >>> Anyway, would it make sense to make the two names more consistent, such >>> as "inv" and "inv-by", *or* "invalidates" and "invalidated-by"? >> >> >> >> That's what we originally had, but invalidated-by was judged to waste >> bytes, whereas invalidated didn't seem so bad. YMMV. > > > Clarifying: what I'm unhappy with is not each of the two names, but their > combination. > > With respect to wasting bytes: understood, but as far as I can tell, thes= e > link header field instances only occur on responses to write operations, = so > I'm not sure how a few bytes more per invalided resource is a problem. Hi Julian, "inv-by" is applied to the cacheable response to indicate that the context IRI is invalidated by a change in another resource so it applies to safe/cacheable responses. "invalidates" however does only occur on responses to non-safe requests. Cheers, M From prathe@gmail.com Fri Jun 22 09:19:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE2121F87BA for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2kufq3o0mvg for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0AFE21F87B0 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so754122eek.31 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:19:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lLrNUvejgHf6PS7Y9+YLKcAxz86LrSJn9y/exUKFgU4=; b=rpLIZeQW5TbCk4wmMDtdKrNcWQyNVvUBTCdFSjfdcSsHy8l92shlBcanSzUveY1xF/ o6hmkKnxW0vvg3RhSTMtnmB1RAQ8a9TzezbklNdrybHjlpYRhCQbAihHN97ng7p5f+bc cK3RPYZhyr1S3GiPMFfkU5CBVCuFuK/Bb7svpHFenL3SjQd5CAD5V3MbAK+/dBaG10YG sRQEATfr/6/VB3wo9ongJrFnQ0y7n4PLKw737HQwoFEJnc/3N29ueoWusHhlI9ZnMzqP dq8/ntkuXtGthPui0LC0OSTAK9LqUjmKqRPnAhMnq8bcWZpyISW3Cs+8p+s7NUWPA9jy YqfQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.188.10 with SMTP id z10mr599179eem.28.1340381943064; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.205.3 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:19:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philippe_Rath=E9?= To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [link-relations] BNF notation of media-type X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:19:04 -0000 Hi all, Looking at the notation for media-type in RFC 5988: media-type = type-name "/" subtype-name I wonder why there is no mention of media-type parameters here? Should the BNF notation in the RFC4288 including parameters be use here? Thanks, -- Philippe From jan.algermissen@nordsc.com Wed Jun 27 00:19:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B7A21F855F for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e6KbIfaZj7xP for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7995A21F855B for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.165.194.206] (tmo-097-115.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.97.115]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MRecW-1SHE8Y0Cwi-00SieE; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:19:38 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jan Algermissen In-Reply-To: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:19:35 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> To: Mark Nottingham X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:QroGn+NZkdpGyeAmBXtB8v8vubDIUIEWj7SUCgTXRWk R6wo2kDwlhOV+Jxtq0UiYlQXT3A3boCIrDliQ6XeE/uZmnP5pR sVeZhXHTna0W2Tpkx2pFMRZbmn9SK3nZ10PMCE/1r5W5So/5ix G3A/8KufuegsI5IpUFHqDV8dNxlOUMrVsWkbrxEHYuUl0HevXO 9GwmE3VGbLDTPaYCpKdStJyGgcFsZvzl/Uae48+qnEsMXw7Mx+ d6hIINHAB3FRGcFo7QsCy7o+tW7JXVIsOIN0XODV5D/PisPzZ8 xHv6swZFux8zkM9m/uvBTO4q+5OpTluDEuWCIsrRj1n2AIR02G oUMdAQt3AHZmEuiPjo20o26VKXUS+fz67V71S9qAo3NPuXKbad cIptdx0/FD+sg== Cc: Mike Kelly , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:19:44 -0000 Hi Mark, On Jun 1, 2012, at 3:07 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". See: > > After discussion, sounds fine to me. (Aka: I approve the proposed rels) Jan > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations From mnot@mnot.net Wed Jun 27 00:24:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E38C21F85C2 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 478ictRabatn for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BF921F8579 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.196.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65CB222E257; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:24:18 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <70104337-01C2-4492-9BB0-52D5660F3A24@mnot.net> References: <05D2DE86-8B5A-4BD7-B43B-9A12A07FD5F1@mnot.net> To: Jan Algermissen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Mike Kelly , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:24:35 -0000 Thanks. On 27/06/2012, at 5:19 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 3:07 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". See: >> >> > > After discussion, sounds fine to me. (Aka: I approve the proposed rels) > > Jan > > >> Cheers, >> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/