Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATIONs: invalidates / inv-by

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:01:55 +0200

On 2012-06-01 03:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> We'd like to register two new relations, "invalidates" and "inv-by". See:
>    <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-02>
>
> 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: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:24:37 +1000

> 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: J Ross Nicoll <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:43:02 +0100

> 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: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:05:48 +0200

>newbie staring at a web page thinking "Invisible by? Invulnerable by? 

I second this.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · 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: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:53:48 +1000

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,

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:02:43 +0200

* 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:[email-masked] · 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: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:06:27 +1000

> about what it could mean. Or we could try finding some suitable synonym,

No, I'd prefer the bikeshed to be blue, please.

:)

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:15:11 +0200

>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:[email-masked] · 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: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:19:41 +1000

On 04/06/2012, at 11:15 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> 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

It's not the role of a registry to act as a gatekeeper or protocol purity review board.

Cheers,

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:22:10 +1000

> 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,

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:42:12 +0200

* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>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:[email-masked] · 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: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:46:24 +1000

> 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,

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:06:09 +0200

> 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 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:10:14 +0200

On 2012-06-14 15:06, Julian Reschke 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.
>

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: Mike Kelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:10:57 +0100

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

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: Jan Algermissen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:19:35 +0200

Hi Mark,

>  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-02>

After discussion, sounds fine to me. (Aka: I approve the proposed rels)

Jan

> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:24:18 +1000

Thanks.