- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:00:23 +1000
- To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Hi Robert, Thanks for the feedback. I've responded and tracked the resulting changes in: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1611 Happy to discuss further here or there if necessary. Cheers, > On 20 Aug 2021, at 9:40 pm, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > 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. ;-) -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 23 August 2021 02:00:49 UTC