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

Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 05:43:15 -0700
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net, mnot@mnot.net
Message-ID: <165512419508.17581.12717816391315736759@ietfa.amsl.com>
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


# AD Review for draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05

Thanks for a well-written document. My comments are below.

Running ietf-comments locally doesn't seem to correct parse my markdown nit
comment ...

## Discuss

## Comments

## Nits

### Structure of section 3

A few related mostly nits that I've grouped in a single comment related to this

>  Section 6 of [HTTP] defines five distinct parts to HTTP messages.  A
>  framing indicator is added to signal how these parts are composed:

1. This references 5 distinct parts, then has a list of 7 items.
2. I'm not convinced that the list follows the section sentence, and perhaps
could be better introduced in a new sentence. 3. Everything in the list starts
with what it is, except for item 2, which is then inconsistently structured
relative to item 3.
Received on Monday, 13 June 2022 12:43:28 UTC

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