- From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 18:20:22 -0700
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@pobox.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: Discuss 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 https://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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cice/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This should be easy to resolve, but I want to make sure there's been thought on it: section 3 says: "Note that this information is specific to the associated request; the set of supported encodings might be different for other resources on the same server, and could change over time or depend on other aspects of the request (such as the request method)." .. but then later... "[...] However, the header field can also be used to indicate to clients that content codings are supported, to optimize future interactions. For example, a resource might include it in a 2xx response when the request payload was big enough to justify use of a compression coding, but the client failed do so." This seems to indicate a need for guidance on when the client can reuse the Accept-Encoding value. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- section 3, 5th paragraph: For the two SHOULDs and one SHOULD NOT in this paragraph, can you suggest some reasons an implementation of this spec might choose something different?
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 01:20:56 UTC