W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-03

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:54:08 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B152F9C4-0F82-49FC-9974-B6155284B477@mnot.net>
To: otilibil@eurecom.fr
Hi Ariel,

Thanks for the review!

Responses below:

> On 8 Apr 2018, at 6:27 am, otilibil@eurecom.fr wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes. This is one of the few phrases from RFC3205 that has made it through unchanged. That said, this isn't meant to be a complete listing, just context. 

See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c8b3454b28


> 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.

I don't think it's confusing to use a colloquial possessive when talking about the protocol; do you have preferred alternate phrasing that isn't too awkward? Changing these to "The [object] of HTTP" and similar seems clunky to me. Also, the RFC Editor tends to weed out the worst issues of this nature.


> 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...".

There's a bit of a line being walked here. While the main focus of the document is IETF-defined protocols, other organisations do define things based upon HTTP, and we don't want to exclude them if they choose to adopt this.


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

Ah, this is an artefact of using Markdown; fixed (please tell me if I missed any in the next draft).


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

Thanks.


> 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."

Fixed, thanks.


> 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".

I'm going to leave these for the RFC Editor to decide upon.


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

Thanks again!


> 
> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2018 22:54:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:20 UTC