Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] BCP56bis (#232)

Summarising our discussion on this at the [Tokyo F2F](https://cryptpad.w3ctag.org/code/#/1/view/TutVXt+MSZTzQmuNeMrHXg/exTf44AJ0kJSdxfe2TNzKjYoYFos1cbxppVwfGztRtM/): 

1. lack of an explainer

2. what has changed between this and bcp56? (see point 1)

3. stronger on https? e.g. "any new http-based protocol should be https especially when protocols are using authentication tokens."

4. the language should be simplified to enable this to have a wider audience (Sangwhan to elaborate).

5. having a specific section on options might be good.  (e.g. "don't use options")

6. There should there be more discussion on other methods - currently only in-depth discussion on GET. 

7. Section 4.12 "some considerations include" is vague. Whole section needs to contain more concrete advice. More examples needed.

8. perhaps adding a mention of variants.

9. Linkage to [data-on-the-web best practices](ttps://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/)? 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/232#issuecomment-379431327