Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-09: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-09: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-compression-dictionary/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-09

Thank you for the work put into this document. Please note that I am outside my
area of expertise when reading this document.

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

Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Introduction

Suggest adding some (graphical?) explanations on how the technique works. It
took me a while (admitting that I am not familiar with the domain) to
understand how the headers are used. In other words, it would be nice to
present the forest before describing the trees.

## Section 1

Is it "file" or "page/resource" in `Using a previous version of a file as a
dictionary for a newer version ` ?

## Section 2.1.3

It is unclear to me how `when the dictionary is advertised as being available`
can be verified by the client.

## Section 2.3

I have hard time to fit the example with `The "Dictionary-ID" request header
... MUST be identical to the server-provided "id".` as there is a prefix:
`/v1/main.js`. This is of course due to structured field, but it would be nice
to explain the structure of this field.

## Section 4

As draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format has expired for more than a year (and
not even WG adopted), I wonder whether this section is still useful ? I.e.,
just keep section 5 and remove section 4.

Is there a reason why the lengths of the magic number are different for the two
supported compressions ?

## Section 7.1

Suggest referring to the IANA registry by their URI (i.e.,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xhtml#content-coding)
rather than by the RFC that has created them.

## Section 8

Should `middle-boxes` be more descriptive (e.g., web proxies, ...) ?

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 2.1.4

Suggest to use double quotes around raw in `and defaults to raw`.

## Section 4

s/fixed 4 byte sequence and a 32 byte hash/fixed 4-byte sequence and a 32-byte
hash/ ?

s/Bytes/bytes/ ?