Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01

On 2015-07-22 17:55, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Apologies in advance for nitpicking.
> As that was at the end of the message, I don't see how it qualifies as
> "in advance", but now I'm the one picking the silliest nits.  :-)
> And no apology needed; cleaner text is always good.
>> I know this is picking nits, but shouldn't the first sentence in section 5
>> (Deployment Considerations) have "already" and "are" transposed?
> No, I don't think so.  I think that "servers are already required to
> eat bananas" and "servers already are required to eat bananas" mean
> the same thing.  The adverb is a very flexible thing.
>> I would also suggest dropping the "does" in favor of simply "uses":
>> Servers that do not support content codings in requests are already required
>> to fail a request that uses a content coding.
> On this one, I agree with you.  If the previous sentence or paragraph
> had said, "If a request does not use content coding, blah blah," then
> the "does" would be a useful counterpoint.  But without that, it's a
> little awkward.  Julian might consider putting this on his queue of
> changes, though my guess is that the RFC Editor would make this change
> anyway.


Thanks, Dee!

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 06:35:31 UTC