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

Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 03:48:21 -0800
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-priority@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, tpauly@apple.com, tpauly@apple.com
Message-ID: <163956890099.9695.11607836841143168109@ietfa.amsl.com>
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-11: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is really easy to read and it
should bring real values.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for the shepherd's write-up including the section
about the WG consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

I like the way that urgency and incremental are defined and used.

-- Section 4.1 --
Please bear with my lack of knowledge here, but I wonder what is the expected
client behaviour in the absence of SETTINGS_NO_RFC7540_PRIORITIES ? Should it
keep using the 2 priority signals ?

I also wonder about the asymmetry between the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, i.e., may
the client continue to send both priority signales in the 2nd paragraph ?

-- Section 4.3 --
Should the 'community' be defined in "cannot be agreed upon in the community" ?

-- Section 6 --
Does the describe used of u=7 contradict the one described earlier as "delivery
of software updates" in section 4.1 ? Perhaps add the pre-fetch use case in
section 4.1 ?

-- Section 7.1 --
Should this be "Type (i) = 0x10" in the figure 1 to match the text
"(type=0x10)" in the first paragraph ?
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2021 11:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 15 December 2021 11:48:38 UTC