W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Comments on PEP draft

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 17:17:57 -0700
Message-Id: <af8c3ca7010210047fc0@[]>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: frystyk@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3166
Here are some brief comments on the latest PEP draft.

My understanding of this draft is that is only really usable to describe
extensions to HTTP that involve the use of new headers to modify the
semantics of existing methods.  If you create an extension which defines
new methods, then PEP doesn't allow you to specify what those new methods
are, nor any new response codes those methods may generate.

If my understanding is correct, then there should be some text in the draft
explaining the scope of PEP.  If my understanding is incorrect, then
perhaps there should be an example showing how PEP can be used to describe
an HTTP extension which uses a new method.

Some nits:

Section 5, first paragraph: BFN -> BNF
Also, "field-name" should be added to the list of productions used in the
PEP draft and defined in RFC2068.

Section 6, strength production: needs closing parenthesis

Section 7, "We call such a request for "binding".  Missing a noun after "a".

- Jim
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 1997 17:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC