W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2021

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-12

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:49:44 +1000
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis.all@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, last-call@ietf.org
Message-Id: <5B62497D-6009-4CB7-B99F-EC7DCB128967@mnot.net>
To: David Black <david.black@dell.com>
Hi David,

Thanks very much for the review. I think it's probably best to defer discussion of the issue below until the IESG does its comments/DISCUSSes, as they ultimately own policy in this area (AIUI).

Cheers,


> On 14 Jul 2021, at 11:23 am, David Black via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I did notice one non-Transport ISSUE of potential concern - Section 4.3 on
> Specifying Client Behavior leads off with these two paragraphs:
> 
>   An application's expectations for client behaviour ought to be
>   closely aligned with those of Web browsers, to avoid interoperability
>   issues when they are used.
> 
>   One way to do this is to define it in terms of [FETCH], since that is
>   the abstraction that browsers use for HTTP.
> 
> Based on this text, I was surprised to see that not only is [FETCH] an
> informative reference, but that it is also a reference to a non-archival source
> (WHATWG, "Fetch - Living Standard").   Given the prominent use of that
> citation, I'd think that the reference ought to be a normative reference to an
> archival document, perhaps complemented with advice on where to find
> updated versions of that document.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2021 01:50:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 14 July 2021 01:50:09 UTC