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

Re: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 01:58:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oYW1+7xKhx2-z98Mrqz42J9t2URxb37+2PBPg40FHytxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-priority@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Hi Lars,

Thanks for these. I've addressed them in
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1870

Cheers
Lucas

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:38 PM Lars Eggert via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Lars Eggert 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to Maria Ines Robles for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/k0c2L3WOP5A_dxSAHzy6PkmoHvw
> ).
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may
> choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so
> there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what
> you
> did with these suggestions.
>
> Section 1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> > have their own needs that are independent from client needs, so they
> often co
> >                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
> "independent of"?
>
> Section 1. , paragraph 4, nit:
> > s as input into prioritization decision making. The design and
> implementatio
> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The noun "decision-making" (= the process of deciding something) is spelled
> with a hyphen.
>
> Section 5. , paragraph 4, nit:
> > ream, allowing them to be sent independent from the stream that carries
> the r
> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
> "independent of"?
>
> Section 7.2. , paragraph 9, nit:
> > ded value. This is different from the the request header field, in which
> omi
> >                                   ^^^^^^^
> Two determiners in a row. Choose either "the" or "the".
>
> Section 8. , paragraph 9, nit:
> >  SHOULD be served by sharing bandwidth amongst them. Incremental
> resources a
> >                                    ^^^^^^^
> Do not mix variants of the same word ("amongst" and "among") within a
> single
> text.
>
> Section 10. , paragraph 3, nit:
> > t generation order might lead to sub-optimal results at the client, as
> early
> >                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
> This word is normally spelled as one.
>
> Section 13.2. , paragraph 2, nit:
> > n registers the following entry in the the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
> (HTTP)
> >                                    ^^^^^^^
> Two determiners in a row. Choose either "the" or "the".
>
> These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which is being deprecated:
>  * http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/83/slides/slides-83-httpbis-5.pdf
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 December 2021 01:59:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 24 December 2021 01:59:26 UTC