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

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the feedback. See responses in:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1609

Cheers,


> On 19 Aug 2021, at 7:13 am, Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 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"?
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2021 02:16:21 UTC