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

Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:01:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4F2EB5CE.3080300@gmx.de>
To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-01-31 22:28, James Snell wrote:
> I just posted an update for the HTTP Prefer Header altering the
> intended status from "Informational" to "Standards Track". No
> additional changes were made. As I have not received any further
> technical input on the specification, I am issuing an *Informal* Last
> Call for comments before I request that it be kicked up the chain for
> review.
>
> Mark Nottingham has agreed to serve as the document shepherd for
> helping to move it forward.
>
> Current Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-11.txt
>
> - James

I think we're almost there. Some notes:

s/2. The Prefer Request Header/2. The Prefer Request Header Field/



   Prefer     = "Prefer" ":" 1#preference
   preference = token [ BWS "=" BWS value ]
                *( OWS ";" [ OWS parameter ] )
   parameter  = token [ BWS "=" BWS value ]
   value      = token / quoted-string

Could use <word> instead of value 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.3.2.4>)



s/Registry of Preferences (Section 9.1))/Registry of Preferences 
(Section 9.1)/



s/In various situations, A proxy may/In various situations, a proxy may/

Also: is this MAY? If not say "can". Same in other places.



2.2 Examples: end the descriptions with a colon (":").

If "strict" and "lenient" are described as a mutually exclusive pair, 
shouldn't this also be the case for return-minimal vs return-representation?



/This specification establishes an IANA registry of such relation types 
see Section 9.1./This specification establishes an IANA registry of such 
relation types (see Section 9.1)./



9.1:

"Application Data: [optional]" -- copied from RFC 5988 (?) but doesn't 
make sense here...



The httpbis references need an update.


Finally, I notice that most registry considerations are cloned from RFC 
5988. I'm not totally sure that this is a good idea; Mark has been 
discussing this in a different context for some time now, so I guess 
he'll have something to say :-)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 17:01:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:54 GMT