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

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

From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:15:09 +1000
Message-Id: <228fa043-e21c-4f07-9b75-b9bd327191d2@beta.fastmail.com>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message@ietf.org>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Thanks Rob,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022, at 22:43, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> 1. This references 5 distinct parts, then has a list of 7 items.

Yeah, that's a problem.  Not least because HTTP lists 4 items...

> 2. I'm not convinced that the list follows the section sentence, and perhaps
> could be better introduced in a new sentence. 

I agree.  Here's my tweak:

+{{Section 6 of HTTP}} defines the general structure of HTTP messages and
+composes those messages into distinct parts.  This format describes how those
+parts are composed into a sequence of bytes.  At a high level, binary messages
+are comprised of:

> 3. Everything in the list starts
> with what it is, except for item 2, which is then inconsistently structured
> relative to item 3.

I'm inclined to leave some awkwardness here, as it is an accurate reflection of the underlying awkwardness :)  Still, it can be improved.  Perhaps:

+2. For a response, zero or more informational responses.  Each informational
+   response consists of an informational status code and header section.

Pull request at: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2160
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 00:15:39 UTC

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