Re: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-14: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for reviewing! Apologies for the late reply... :/

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:47 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> 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?
>

I'm not sure I properly understand the issue you're referring to. Would you
like to see a stronger restriction than sh-token?