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

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

From: Ariel Otilibili Anieli <otilibil@eurecom.fr>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 09:19:38 +0200
Message-ID: <20180409091938.jwktz250pwoc44cc@webmail.eurecom.fr>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mark,

A comment inline.

Regards,
Ariel

Quoting Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:

> 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).
The full list in the current draft:
# curl -sL  
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-03.txt | grep  
-Pn "_[\w\s]+_"
206:   document, we say an application is _using HTTP_ when any of the
232:   An application might not be _using HTTP_ according to this
238:   Such applications are referred to as _protocols based upon HTTP_ in
294:   Much of the value of HTTP is in its _generic semantics_ - that is,
373:   [RFC0793] if not), or making the application be _based upon HTTP_,
664:   IETF Review (see [RFC7232]), and are also required to be _generic_.
986:   consider the application _as_ a Web application, and to follow best
>
>
>> 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/
>
>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr
Received on Monday, 9 April 2018 07:20:12 UTC

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