- From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 04:40:57 -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
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-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 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Mark, Thanks for this document, I found it to be a very interesting read, and I can see that this will be useful to refer to in future. A few minor comments: Sec 4.4.2: "However, application-specific schemes can also be defined" Given the previous paragraph is using 2119 language, I think that "MAY" would be better than "can also" here. Sec 4.5.1: Suggest changing "to have content" to "to contain content". I had to read this a couple of times to understand that this was about the GET request sending content to the server rather than content in the response. Sec 4.13: Nit: Suggest changing "consider the application actually" => "actually consider the application" Sec: 6.1. Privacy Considerations "to run mobile code" I think that it would be helpful to expand on what you mean by "to run mobile code". I.e., I presume this is about allowing a client to send code that is executed on the server, rather than the concern being about applications that run on mobile/cell devices. ;-) Regards, Rob
Received on Friday, 20 August 2021 11:41:12 UTC