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

Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 04:07:32 -0800
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net, mnot@mnot.net
Message-ID: <164138445291.17439.2910557071668687294@ietfa.amsl.com>
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-06: 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-http2bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. As a side note, I am impressed
that the WG only needed 6 revisions for such a major document! The introduction
section is also crystal clear and to the points.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for the (short) shepherd's write-up including
the section about the WG consensus (even if very terse).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

-- Section 3.1 --
Beside the history associated to "h2c", I really wonder why it is described in
the document (just out of curiosity).

-- Section 5.1.1 --
In "The identifier of a newly established stream MUST be numerically greater",
is the increment interval 1 or can it be any positive non-nul integer ?

-- Section 5.2.1 --
In the bullet 1. in "Both types of flow control", it is unclear to me what
"both" refers to especially after reading the previous "allow a variety of
flow-control algorithms", which hints to several (and not 2) mechanisms. Or is
it per direction ?

-- Section 6.1 --
The SEC AD will obviously have the final word on this but wouldn't random
padding be more secure (at the expense of later compression of course) ?

-- Section 6.7 --
In figure 9, suggest to indicate that the Length is 8 octets.

-- Section 9.1 --
In "Clients SHOULD NOT open more than one HTTP/2 connection", should some words
be added when the client has multiple interfaces (e.g., Wi-Fi & mobile) ? I
understand that this is probably beyond HTTP...

-- Appendix A --
Some justifications (beyond the note at the end of the appendix) would be
welcome.

Should a pointer to section 9.2.2 be added ?
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2022 12:07:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 5 January 2022 12:07:47 UTC