Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <> Thu, 21 May 2020 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736943A07DB for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 00:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TPh4sVcRcJvf for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 00:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 934D23A07E0 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 00:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jbfHt-0002bv-R4 for; Thu, 21 May 2020 07:06:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 07:06:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jbfHs-0002bA-B3 for; Thu, 21 May 2020 07:06:40 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jbfHp-00052H-Ni for; Thu, 21 May 2020 07:06:40 +0000
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3423A07C3; Thu, 21 May 2020 00:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Cc:,,, Tommy Pauly <>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.0.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 00:06:26 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO=2.095, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1jbfHp-00052H-Ni 4ece7908e959ad2066e122f09cda8584
Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/37696
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18: 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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for this work.

I support Benjamin's DISCUSS point about case sensitivity especially with
respect to how a consumed dictionary should be used.  It's fine if you want to
say that the rules for key matching are left to the authors of specifications
of future structured fields, but if that's the case, please do say so.

Should Section 3.1 be explicit that lists are ordered?  It does say "array" but
some definitions I found for that term don't explicitly say anything about
order either, just a "collection".

As my colleagues have already done a rather thorough job, all I have left is a
few nits:


Section 3.1.2:
* "... key-values pairs ..." -- s/values/value/

Section 3.2:
* First paragraph, two instances of "items" should be capitalized.
* "Note that dictionaries ..." -- capitalize "dictionaries"
* "... Inner List of tokens:" -- capitalize "tokens"
* "A Dictionary with a mix of singular and list values ..." -- capitalize
"list", and maybe "Item" instead of "singular"?