editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00

1. Overview

I find the statement about pipelining a bit ... unbalanced. 
"Intermediary Inference" is no problem at all if you run over SSL, which 
is something SPDY does by default. Unless I'm missing something.

3.2.1 Request

":version" - so this essentially positions SPDY as alternate transport 
layer for HTTP; preserving the version number. Out of curiosity; what is 
it needed for? Preserving all information when tunneling? The same 
question applies to ":scheme"...

3.2.3 Authentication

a) as far as I understand, RFC 4559 does not define the "NTLM" scheme.

b) in general, it's not clear why this paragraph is here; does 
Authentication work any different than in HTTP? Maybe just point to 
HTTPbis P7?


3.3

"Browsers MUST implement throttles..."

That doesn't seem to be testable. Maybe replace with advice in prose.

6.2 SETTINGS frame

This seems to be a feature complete orthogonal to the remainder of the 
spec. Maybe just remove it?


Editorial Nits:

Boilerplate: month name needs to be a full name, such as "February"

Abstract: should not contain references (so just remove the "[RFC2616]")

(speaking of which this should really reference HTTPbis)

Terminology: "header" -> "header field"

2.2.1 Control Frames

has "...see Control Frames for the complete list..."; this should be a 
proper reference (to where?)

2.2.2 Data frames

s/MUST send issue/MUST issue/

3.2.1

Cites RFC 1738 for URI syntax; should cite RFC 3986.

3.3

Example host names should use the names reserved for this purpose.

s/disc cache/cache/

10.

The TLSNPN reference needs to use the proper reference format for 
Internet Drafts. I also note that the referenced spec has expired a few 
months ago; if this is an integral part of SPDY we need to figure out 
how to make progress on it.

Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 14:00:46 UTC