- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:37:22 +0100
- 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