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

Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:00:23 +1000
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Message-Id: <CD1312C7-B0DC-49B6-A73D-F0D6847B04A9@mnot.net>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 August 2021 02:00:51 UTC