W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2022

Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-04

From: James <james.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 23:33:43 +0200
Cc: art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message.all@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, last-call@ietf.org
Message-Id: <8E672BF7-8BB9-4AAC-83B9-E67B411C6EF1@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Hi Martin,
These changes on top of those you did as part of David's suggestions look good, and I've got nothing more to bring up.


- J

> On 31 May 2022, at 01:18, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> Hi James,
> Thanks for the review.
> I tried to move the definition of "invalid message" up, but I think that having it in the table of contents is useful enough that having it after Section 3 is necessary.  I get that the repeated references are a little annoying, but once you jump forward, I hope that the content of Section 4 is narrow enough to internalize.
> Moving the normative text from Section 6 makes a lot of sense.
> I made some other editorial changes as a result of trying to shuffle Section 4 around.  You can see the changes here: 
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2140
> or spelled out https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/binary-artart/draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message.html (including the changes David suggested)
> Cheers,
> Martin
> On Mon, May 30, 2022, at 23:33, James Gruessing via Datatracker wrote:
>> Reviewer: James Gruessing
>> Review result: Ready
>> This is my review of draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-04 as part of 
>> ART Last Call review.
>> Overall this is a concisely written document, and although the specification
>> makes it clear that its format is distinct from existing framing defined within
>> HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 (in addition to borrowing elements from QUIC) readers who are
>> not already familiar with these may be at a considerable disadvantage trying to
>> understand this document.
>> Editorial Comments:
>> Section 3 is quite difficult to grok, and I agree with the suggestions made by
>> David Schinazi in his Gen-ART review. However as one additional minor suggestion
>> is that references to section 4 within section 3 appear repetitiously, and as
>> section 4 doesn't provide specific guidance for each of the invalid message
>> scenarios but generic text I'd suggest you include "invalid message" as a
>> definition in section 2 that states all usage of the word is applicable to
>> section 4.
>> Section 6 - As a suggestion I would propose the normative text around
>> pseudo-fields instead be placed within appropriate sub-sections of section 3,
>> keeping section 6 exclusively informative.
>> Asides from this there are no further nits or major issues to mention.
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2022 21:33:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:07 UTC