- From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 03:17:36 -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
Robert Wilton 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thanks for this document. It seemed relatively easy to read, although I'm not sure whether I'm totally bought into the idea since it feels like it is perhaps making HTTP a little bit less stateless. However, I'm not particularly familiar with the details of HTTP as it is outside my domain of expertise. One issue that wasn't clear to me was how do you ensure that two independent entities don't both try and standardize the same client hint. From looking at the IANA section in https://wicg.github.io/ua-client-hints/ it seems the answer is probably that the client hint headers would be expected to be registered in RFC3864. It might be useful if this document had some text describing this, along with a reference to RFC 3864. Regards, Rob
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2020 10:17:50 UTC