W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

p1-messaging proofreading

From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:57:26 -0500
Message-ID: <bb9e09ee1002161057r7c6e5191m56c86d7df0469255@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Some comments...


The lone spots where "1.0" & "1.1" are used, not "HTTP/1.1"

OLD
4. If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
transfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-delimiting
media type defines the transfer-length. This media type MUST NOT be
used unless the sender knows that the recipient can parse it; the
presence in a request of a Range header with multiple byte-range
specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the client can parse
multipart/byteranges responses.

    *  A range header might be forwarded by a 1.0 proxy that does not
understand multipart/byteranges; in this case the server MUST delimit
the message using methods defined in items 1, 3 or 5 of this section.

NEW
4. If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
transfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-delimiting
media type defines the transfer-length. This media type MUST NOT be
used unless the sender knows that the recipient can parse it; the
presence in a request of a Range header with multiple byte-range
specifiers from a HTTP/1.1 client implies that the client can parse
multipart/byteranges responses.

    *  A range header might be forwarded by a HTTP/1.0 proxy that does
not understand multipart/byteranges; in this case the server MUST
delimit the message using methods defined in items 1, 3 or 5 of this
section.


OLD
The problem was that some existing 1.0 clients may be sending
Keep-Alive to a proxy server that doesn't understand Connection, which
would then erroneously forward it to the next inbound server, which
would establish the Keep-Alive connection and result in a hung
HTTP/1.0 proxy waiting for the close on the response.

NEW
The problem was that some existing HTTP/1.0 clients may be sending
Keep-Alive to a proxy server that doesn't understand Connection, which
would then erroneously forward it to the next inbound server, which
would establish the Keep-Alive connection and result in a hung
HTTP/1.0 proxy waiting for the close on the response.


Verb & subject match ("use...requires")?

OLD
The use of inline images and other associated data often require a
client to make multiple requests of the same server in a short amount
of time.

NEW
The use of inline images and other associated data often requires a
client to make multiple requests of the same server in a short amount
of time.


The phrase 'Connection header including the connection-token "close"'
is used twice, but close is not consistently quoted. Not sure if
that's on purpose.

OLD
An HTTP/1.1 server MAY assume that a HTTP/1.1 client intends to
maintain a persistent connection unless a Connection header including
the connection-token "close" was sent in the request. If the server
chooses to close the connection immediately after sending the
response, it SHOULD send a Connection header including the
connection-token close.


Verb & subject match?

OLD
Multiple Via field values represents each proxy or gateway that has
forwarded the message.

NEW
Multiple Via field values represent each proxy or gateway that has
forwarded the message.


Incomplete "appropriate guidelines for use developed and followed" ?

OLD
Log information should be carefully guarded, and appropriate
guidelines for use developed and followed.

NEW
Log information should be carefully guarded, and appropriate
guidelines for use should be developed and followed.


I think this is the original intent of this sentence...

OLD
Users of a proxy need to be aware that they are no trustworthier than
the people who run the proxy; HTTP itself cannot solve this problem.

NEW
Users of a proxy need to be aware that proxies are no trustworthier
than the people who run them; HTTP itself cannot solve this problem.


Should "SHOULD be" repeated?

OLD
Clients SHOULD be tolerant in parsing the Status-Line and servers
tolerant when parsing the Request-Line.

NEW
Clients SHOULD be tolerant in parsing the Status-Line and servers
SHOULD be tolerant when parsing the Request-Line.


Not sure what is appropriate for the 2nd sentence. "Proxies are
required..." or "It requires proxies..." ?

OLD
The use and interpretation of HTTP version numbers has been clarified
by [RFC2145]. Require proxies to upgrade requests to highest protocol
version they support to deal with problems discovered in HTTP/1.0
implementations (Section 2.5)


"non-existent" is the correct spelling I think.

OLD
Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value
tokens. (Sections 6.2 and 3.4)


-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 18:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:16 GMT