W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Richard Barnes' Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:38:02 -0800
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: mnot@mnot.net, draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression.all@tools.ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20150122063802.9820.6143.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.3.3: "Indices between 1 and the length of the static table..."
The use of 1-based indexing here seems likely to lead to
incompatibilities.

Section 3:
Currently, you never say explicitly that a header block is the
concatenation of encoded header fields, where each field is encoded
according to Section 6.  This would be a good spot to do that.

Section 5.1: "... always finishes at the end of an octet"
It was not immediately clear to me that the "?" bits indicated that an
integer need not *begin* at an octet boundary.  It would be helpful to
note that here.
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 06:38:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:36 UTC