Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-06

Thank you. I have made all of the updates and will cut a new draft-07 after
IETF 120 when the tools unlock again.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 10:12 AM Francesca Palombini <
francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote:

> # AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-06
>
>
>
> cc @fpalombini
>
>
>
> Thank you for the work on this document.
>
>
>
> Almost all my comments are about references. I think a new version is
> necessary before starting IETF Last Call, to avoid process issues along the
> way.
>
>
>
> Francesca
>
>
>
> ## Comments
>
>
>
> ### Duplicated BCP 14 boilerplate
>
>
>
> The boilerplate is duplicate, please remove the second occurrence.
>
>
>
> ### Structured fields
>
>
>
> Can you please update the reference to 8941 to draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis ?
> That doc is with the RFC Editor so should not be holding this document up.
>
>
>
> Also, I believe the reference to draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis should be
> normative, not informative, since terminology from that doc is used.
> Alternatively, if you want to keep the ref informative, you can import the
> part of the terminology that is necessary for this doc. I think that's a
> uglier solution, so I highly prefer sfbis to be made normative, but won't
> block on it.
>
>
>
> ### whatwg reference
>
>
>
> [URLPattern]
>
> "URL Pattern Standard", March 2024, https://urlpattern.spec.whatwg.org/.
>
>
>
> needs to be indicated as Living standard (see RFC 9110 or 9421 for eample
> of whatwg specs references).
>
>
>
> ### Fetch missing reference
>
>
>
> > The "match-dest" value of the Use-As-Dictionary header is an Inner List
> of String values that provides a list of request destinations for the
> dictionary to match (
> https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-request-destination).
>
>
>
> > and passes the CORS check (https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#cors-check).
>
>
>
> Please fix this so that the Fetch spec is properly referenced (normatively
> is needed, I believe).
>
>
>
> ### Missing reference
>
>
>
> > NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
>
>
>
> RFC 8792 should be (informatively) referenced.
>
>
>
> ### RFC 5861
>
>
>
> I agree with Mark's write up, 5861 should really be informative.
>
>
>
> ## Nits
>
>
>
> ### Section 2.2.2.
>
>
>
> There is several occurrences of {Origin}, please fix.
>
>
>
> ### CRIME Ref
>
>
>
> > The CRIME attack shows that it's a bad idea to compress data from mixed
> (e.g. public and private) sources
>
>
>
> Please add a reference.
>
>
>
> ### Cookies
>
>
>
> > To mitigate any additional tracking concerns, clients MUST treat
> dictionaries in the same way that they treat cookies.
>
>
>
> It would be good to have an informative reference to 6265 (or even
> 6265bis).
>
>
>
> ## Notes
>
>
>
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use
> the
>
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
>
> individual GitHub issues.
>
>
>
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
>
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
>