W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02.txt

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 14:30:35 +1200
To: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <32f63c50cd313bf6be924c7a9c1098cf@treenet.co.nz>
On 02.05.2012 11:33, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> HTTP folk,
> Please have a look at this document and send along comments,
> especially if you're an intermediary or firewall person, or consume
> the existing X-Forwarded-For header.
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02>
> Cheers,

Okay, I've been over it with a finer toothed comb this time.

Here are the textual nits and grammer. Design issues in separate reply 
in case we end up with discussions.

** section 4 example #2 syntax error:

   Forwarded: For=,"for=[2001:db8:cafe::17]:47011"
should be
   Forwarded: For=,for="[2001:db8:cafe::17]:47011"

( \" moved)

* section 5.* normative MAY references are inconsistent.

5.1 ", but it can, however, be"
5.2 ", but it MAY also be"
5.3 "MAY be used for example by"
5.4 "This may be"

It looks to me like the normative MAY are not necessary since all the 
texts are informational examples of use. The 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 sentence 
structure could be aligned a bit better for more clarity as well.

** section 5.2 paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 contradict each other:

pgh 1 says "information about the user agent that initiated the 
  The implication clearly being that there is only meant to be one for= 
parameter on the entire line, since there can only be one initiating 
user agent per request.

pgh 3 says "the first
    for-parameter will disclose the user agent where the request first
    was made, followed by any subsequent proxy identifiers."

.. while simultaneously explicitly describing a list of multiple.

Both of these also clash with the concept of proxy or tool originated 
requests where there is no "user agent" relevance. "client" is the term 
to use here in all paragraphs.

** section 6.1 spelling

  "note that an IPv6 adress"  =>  "address"

** section 7.1 grammer implication

Given the earlier section 4 stated the header was OPTIONAL and proxies 
MAY add or MAY delete things. The statement that "information might not 
be correctly updated" is a bit out of place.
  Dropping the word "correctly" out of that sentence brings it inline 
with the normative requirements.

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 02:31:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC