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

Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt> ('Headers-Not-Recognized' HTTP Header Field) to Experimental RFC

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:53:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4D0B6B6D.7040001@gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
CC: ietf@ietf.org, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hello all,

Some answers that concern issues discussed below.

17.12.2010 13:15, SM wrote:
> At 05:28 13-12-10, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>> - ''Headers-Not-Recognized' HTTP Header Field'
>> <draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt> as an
>> Experimental RFC
>
> These comments are not meant to discourage the author from bringing 
> proposals to the IETF.
>
> Version -01 of this draft was submitted on November 21.  It's not even 
> a month and the draft is already at version -09.  I don' think that 
> "commit early, commit often" applies to Internet-Drafts.  As this is 
> probably the author's first draft going for Last Call, it would have 
> been helpful to assign a document shepherd for the document to help 
> the author with the IETF standards process.
You are right, that is my first document in Last Call.
>
> As a nit, the intended status should be "Experimental".
I'll correct it.
>
> From the Abstract (draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-09):
>
>   "This document defines mechanism which allows HTTP servers to notify
>    clients about not recognized or not proceed headers"
>
> Shouldn't that have been "processed" instead of "proceed"?
I find 'processed' more acceptable for this case. However to mind it 
would be better to mention 'not supported'
>
> In Section 1.1:
>
>  "However, all hosts are not able to support all the HTTP headers."
>
> Shouldn't that be HTTP servers?
No. It should be 'hosts' in abstract - that is a mistake.
>
> From Section 2.1:
>
>   "If the HTTP host receives HTTP packet which contains some headers
>    which are not supported by it, it is RECOMMENDED for it to include
>    the Headers-Not-Recognized header in the response."
>
> That could be rewritten as:
>
>   If the HTTP server receives a request header field that it does not 
> support
That will be corrected.
>
>   "Intermediate systems (also called middle-boxes), such as proxies,
>    tunnels, gateways etc. MUST transfer the packets with Headers-Not-
>    Recognized field to the destination host without changing the entity
>    of this header if the unrecognized header had been present in the
>    initial HTTP request (i. e. request which intermediate system
>    received before transferring it to destination node), but SHOULD omit
>    it if Headers-Not-Recognized header entity concerns to header added
>    to initial request by middle-box."
>
> What do packets have to do with HTTP headers?
What do you mean? Packets have nothing to do with headers, there is 
nothing about this in paragraph above. Maybe you meant middle-boxes?
>
> In his replies during the Last Call [1][2], the author mentioned that 
> this header is useful for debugging.  I don't see any mention of that 
> in the proposal.
Maybe, I'll add something related to this topic.

I'll let you know as soon new version of the draft will be available 
(maybe that will be at the end of Last Call).

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> Regards,
> -sm
P.S. Could you please let me know what is your full name?
>
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg64867.html
> 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg64838.html
>
Received on Friday, 17 December 2010 13:54:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:34 GMT