- 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
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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # 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. > 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