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

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-04.txt

From: Ariel Otilibili Anieli <otilibil@eurecom.fr>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:28:33 +0200
Message-ID: <20180416092833.9z3vvp45cwk0s8wo@webmail.eurecom.fr>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Mark,

Some notes below.

Regards,
Ariel

Quoting Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:

> Thanks, Ariel.
>
> Incorporated, with some notes below.
>
>> On 14 Apr 2018, at 10:38 am, Ariel Otilibili Anieli   
>> <otilibil@eurecom.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Here is my review of this draft:
>>
>> 1. "HTTP-based APIs defined by standards need to more carefully..."  
>>  runs more smoothly than "standards-defined HTTP-based APIs need to  
>>  more carefully consider...".
>>
>> 2. "At the same time, the IETF has a tradition of protocol   
>> reuse..." We could remove the contextual part "At the same time".
>>
>> 3. "These have more freedom to modify protocol operations" instead   
>> of "These have more freedom to modify protocol operation".
>>
>> 4. "or stacking the application upon HTTP, instead of using it"   
>> captures better the writer's mind than "or making the application   
>> be based upon HTTP, instead of using it".
>
> "Based upon HTTP" is a phrase that's introduced in the referenced   
> section; changing it removes the meaning.
>
>
>> 5. The document needs no more to warrant that "Applications using   
>> HTTP MAY specify a minimum version to be supported (HTTP/1.1 is   
>> suggested)": few lines above, it already
>> said: "When specifying the use of HTTP, an application SHOULD use   
>> [RFC7230] as the primary reference". And [RFC7230] does refer to   
>> HTTP/1.1.
>
> Created https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/587
>
>
>> 6. "Because URLs occur in and are generated in HTTP artefacts   
>> commonly, often without human intervention..." I did not get what   
>> you have meant here.
>
> See revision.
>
>
>> 7. "Applications that use HTTP can use the well-known ports...or   
>> they can be deployed upon others." stresses better the work of IANA  
>>  than "Applications that use HTTP can use the applicable default   
>> port...or they can be deployed upon other ports."
>>
>> 8. The sentence "This decision can be made at deployment time, or   
>> might be encouraged by the application’s specification (e.g., by   
>> registering a port for that application)." should be in the same   
>> paragraph than "In either case, non-default ports..."
>>
>> 9. Moreover, "The usage of unknown ports can be made at deployment   
>> time..." instead of "This decision can be made at deployment   
>> time..." and "In either case, unknown ports will need to be   
>> reflected..." instead of "In either case, non-default ports will   
>> need to be reflected..." speak the same voice than Point 8.
>>
>> 9. Idem "Using an unknown port has privacy implications..." for   
>> "Using a port other than the default has privacy implications..."
>
> I don't think that these changes are improvements.
Points 7, 8, & 9 do not improve on the content of text, indeed: they  
add nothing new. But, I think they separate the concerns of this part:

  * Ports 80 and 443 are default ports, because they are well-known
  * In case other ports are chosen (either at deployment time, or at  
specification), the following paragraph advises they be used so and so.
>
>
>> 10. Some Markdown remained: "also required to be _generic_", " the   
>> best approach is to consider the application _as_ a Web application".
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ariel
>>
>> 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-04.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 27
>>> 	Date            : 2018-04-11
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>   HTTP is often used as a substrate for other application protocols
>>>   (a.k.a.  HTTP-based APIs).  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-04
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-04
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-04
>>>
>>>
>>> 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, 16 April 2018 07:29:06 UTC

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