W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

spec size and organization, was: Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:37:22 +0100
Message-ID: <52A19AD2.8090601@gmx.de>
To: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
>   -General comment 1, I am not very keen with the idea of splitting the
> http
>   standard in so many RFCs.
>
>   It is hard to follow and the protocol is not complex enough to justify
>   these lengthy documents.
>
>   I would have rather see 1 concise standard RFC and few Extension RFCs,
>   Informational or BCP RFCs.
>
>   RFC2616 was ~176 pages, looking at Appendix B of the draft for changes
>   since RFC2616, makes me wonder why so much extra text was required (~300
>   pages).

It depends on how you count. You included repeated boilerplate, 
collected ABNFs, indexes, change logs, etc.

When I count the pages containing the actual spec, I get something like 
235 pages. Please also keep in mind that we have included stuff from 
other specs, such as the authentication framework and CONNECT.

And yes, we could have added more prose or examples. Or we could have 
tried to reduce the size. We could have organized the document 
differently. We could have attempted to have an exhaustive list of 
security considerations. But what we have right now is the result of a 
multi-year work, has passed WGLCs and IETF LC, and I don't think that 
now is the right time to make any additional changes except for fixing 
actual bugs.

(we'll get to the non-editorial feedback later)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 09:37:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC