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

Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:13:24 -0700
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, tpauly@apple.com
Message-ID: <162932120408.19729.10852746976344522829@ietfa.amsl.com>
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-14: Yes

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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[S4.3, comment]

* Are all the uses of "should" here deliberately lowercase?  I got
  the feeling some of them could well have been SHOULD, e.g.,
  "Applications using HTTP SHOULD specify that ... when HTTPS is used."

[S4.5.1, nit]

* s/ought consider/ought to consider/, I suspect

[S4.5.2, question]

* Is it correct to say "OPTIONS is not the default GET method"?
  Should that be something like "not the default HTTP method"?

[S4.10, question]

* Might "ambient authority" benefit from a reference to RFC 6454
  section 8.3?

[S4.13, nit]

* "can execute script" -> "a script" or "scripts"?
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2021 21:13:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 18 August 2021 21:13:38 UTC