Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-03

Hi Mark,

Here is my review of this draft:

1. "At the same time, the Internet community has a tradition of  
protocol reuse (e.g., Telnet [RFC0854] as a substrate for FTP  
[RFC0959] and SMTP [RFC2821]), but less experience using HTTP as a  
substrate."

If the "Internet community" means "Internet Engineering Task Force",  
the sentence should plainly state its name, and mention the protocols  
that the IETF has been building upon others, this includes at least  
RESTCONF [RFC8040]; the NETCONF working group has built it upon HTTP  
(the reviewer made them acquainted with this draft,  
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14432.html).  
Maybe a survey to all the Area Directories?

2. Unless one proves technical terms are legal persons, these  
sentences sound weird to me:
     * these protocols’ use of HTTP
     * HTTP’s URL schemes
     * an application’s specification
     * HTTP’s behaviour
     * the application’s deployment is brittle
     * HTTP server’s name space
     * server’s authority
     * HTTP’s complexity
     * the protocol’s ability to evolve
     * the URL’s origin
     * the Web’s same-origin policy
     * the response’s headers
     * an application’s state.

3. "...the HTTP APIs defined by the IETF need to more carefully..."  
emphasizes better the work of the IETF than "...standards-defined HTTP  
APIs need to more carefully...".

4. Some underscored words come across the document:
     * using HTTP (twice)
     * protocols based upon HTTP
     * generic semantics
     * based upon HTTP
     * generic
     * as.

5. Extra spacing in "e.g,. Cookie" (Section 4.7)

6. "When an application is using HTTP, all of the requirements of the  
HTTP protocol suite are in force; the suite does at least include  
[RFC7230], [RFC7231], [RFC7232], [RFC7233], [RFC7234], [RFC7235] and  
[RFC7540]"

Carries better than,

"When an application is using HTTP, all of the requirements of the  
HTTP protocol suite (including but not limited to [RFC7230],  
[RFC7231], [RFC7232], [RFC7233], [RFC7234], [RFC7235] and [RFC7540])  
are in force."

7. "What is Important About HTTP", "a limited fashion is not  
appropriate", " it is common to see specifications", " whether it is  
an origin server", and "it is safer to specify behaviours"

Fit better in the document than,

"What's Important About HTTP", "a limited fashion isn't appropriate",  
" it’s common to see specifications", " whether it’s an origin  
server", and "it’s safer to specify behaviours".

Looking forward for these HTTP Best Practices: they are much needed.

Regards,
Ariel

[RFC8040] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8040

Quoting internet-drafts@ietf.org:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts   
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : On the use of HTTP as a Substrate
>         Author          : Mark Nottingham
>  Filename        : draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-03.txt
>  Pages           : 25
>  Date            : 2018-04-02
>
> Abstract:
>    HTTP is often used as a substrate for other application protocols.
>    This document specifies best practices for these protocols' use of
>    HTTP.
>
>    This document obsoletes RFC 3205.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-03
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-03
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-03
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr

Received on Saturday, 7 April 2018 20:27:37 UTC