- From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 02:47:39 -0700
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, mnot@mnot.net
Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no significant concern here, but I would appreciate an answer if I understand the situation correctly. The Accept-CH header value is structure header value and uses sh-token which has a more restrictive syntax than the HTTP specifications token used for header field names. However, this restriction is not of any real practical concern as all registered HTTP headers starts with an ALPHA. I did notice that the new HTTP semantics documents proposed new registry was not mandating but strongly recommending to keep within what sh-token can except. Thus, do I assume correctly that this issue has been sufficiently discussed in the WG?
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2020 09:47:53 UTC