Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis-05

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for the review; responses below.

> On 30 Jan 2024, at 1:41 am, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> # AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis-05
> cc @fpalombini
>  Thank you for this document.
>  I have a couple of minor points you can address with any other last call comments.
>  ## Comments
>  ### Terminology
>  Section 3.2:
>  > Dictionaries are ordered maps of key-value pairs, where the keys are short textual strings and the values are Items (Section 3.3) or arrays of Items, both of which can be Parameterized (Section 3.1.2).
>  Just to be consistent, is there a reason why you are not using "Inner Lists" instead of "arrays of Items" here?

Because an Inner List is a distinct data structure that can only appear in certain places. Using it here would confuse its purpose.

>  ### IANA registry
>  Please make sure to update https://github.com/protocol-registries/http-fields to add the Structured Type field (ah) in the template.

Yes, but I don't think that should go into the draft...

> Also, should this doc be added to the Reference of the IANA registry itself? (I know the note itself includes a pointer, but it might be good to duplicate there as well).

We generally leave that to the discretion of the Experts, rather than documenting it in the draft.

>  ### Security considerations
>  Section 6:
>  > See also [UNICODE-SECURITY] and [I-D.draft-bray-unichars].
>  What parts of [I-D.draft-bray-unichars] is the reader supposed to look at? Or if it is the whole document, could we have some context around it?

The context seems to be that people are unhappy about unicode -- in particular, that most people don't really understand it. I'm happy to drop this reference, though, as the document doesn't appear to be progressing (yet). Would anyone have a problem with that?

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2024 07:02:45 UTC