- From: Ariel Otilibili Anieli <otilibil@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:28:33 +0200
- 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