Re: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks for replying.  As a reminder, once you've dealt with the IANA
concern, the rest of these comments are non-blocking.  However, I'm happy
to discuss them too.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:58 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:

>
> * "Implementers SHOULD be aware ..." -- this feels like an
>> awkward construction; might I choose not to be aware?
>>
>
> MUST be aware?
>

Just "need to be aware".  I find it awkward to apply
compliance/requirements language to people.

* "Such features SHOULD take
>> into account ..." -- same issue as before, this seems an odd use of BCP 14
>> language
>
> * "User agents SHOULD consider ..." -- same
>
> * "Implementers ought to
>> consider ..." -- why is this only "ought to" given the prior SHOULDs?
>>
>
> Would turning all those to a MUST work?
>

In the third bullet I was trying to illustrate my point: I think it makes
more sense not to use requirements language when talking about people, so
that one seems right to me.

RFC2119 Section 6 gives guidance that's relevant here.

In the first two bullets above, I don't know how to measure compliance with
the requirement that a feature SHOULD take something into account, or
SHOULD consider something.  I think the guidance you're providing needs to
either be more direct and explain what compliance looks like, or not use
these key words at all (at least not in their all-caps forms) if all you
want to do is bring a particular topic to the attention of an implementer.

You also have a "SHOULD take into account" wrapping a list that has two
SHOULD NOTs in it.  I don't know how to interpret that.

Section 6.1:
>> * Why does "Specification document(s)" refer to only a specific section
>> of this
>> document?  Isn't the whole document applicable?
>>
>
> Sure. It's currently pointing at the specific section that defines the
> header, but I can change it to refer to the whole document if that's
> preferred.
>

The registration document says you can do it either way.  I just find
identifying a specific section to be unusual and I was curious.

-MSK