Jason Desrosiers

> It is worth noting [...] that the HTTPAPI working group is producing informational, rather than standards-track RFCs I don't think that's true. There was discussion about "tracks" at one...

> I was going by [this setting](https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/mediatypes/blob/main/draft-ietf-httpapi-rest-api-mediatypes.md?plain=1#L5) which produces "Intended Status: Informational" in the current published I-D. But perhaps that is outdated? I'm not 100% sure of the timeline, but...

@admin-cimug Thank you for the feedback! I'll incorporate that into the document. If you are comfortable with OpenAPI, there's no reason you shouldn't be comfortable with what we end up...

> This looks ready to move out of draft status to me I'm going to wait until @Relequestual contributes his notes about W3C. Then we should be ready.

@admin-cimug We've been discussing all of the issues @awwright brings up here for a while and they have been well received. We're still discussing what our process will be going...

@awwright I'm going to keep this short because the decision has already been made and I don't want to drag this out. But, you put a lot of effort into...

First of all, I think there's some misunderstanding in parts of this conversation about how retrieval URIs work. A retrieval URI is not the same as a default base URI....

> URI you use as a base URI prior to finding a base URI in the resource, or if you don't find a base URI in the resource I don't...

> just meant a default value for the base URI to use in the current evaluation. I now have no idea what you are suggesting in this issue. It doesn't...

I just filed #1322 about dropping the "initial base URI" concept in favor of standard RFC-3986 terms. I think that should be resolved before this can be decided since this...