Thanks for reviewing and apologies for the delay... On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:17 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > 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. > I added a sentence about that to the IANA considerations section. See https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1220/files#diff-6e79d9caec04bd66d25e88d370797f08L243 > > Regards, > Rob > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2020 08:49:50 UTC