Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header

James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB2121F85FC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:23:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZ47DtgrsxaL for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682CE21F85B1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RvAI0-0008ED-7B for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:22:36 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1RvAHk-00088i-6z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:22:20 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com ([74.125.82.171]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1RvAGZ-0004DF-Et for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:21:44 +0000
Received: by werb14 with SMTP id b14so593596wer.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AMUauQAr78X3Ifhn+crnTZhjRCDlOZa4v97fHYVNqlo=; b=X87NPxc+9d0rzOwlKYHwVBmq6qofSV5ZnDDnSLZP+iber9jfSYjYjCQY9Cm/r2AbcZ lYzuILSLkWAqcVd0L6g3S5iFvtU5WeM/NfG+2epHHOU8tEdyhD2t6mVVXyvYZI4nK20p gRpsKJzF6dAaheknKayw7hrGPcEXeZLm26NUc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.89.67 with SMTP id bm3mr42121440wib.13.1328717886389; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.86.8 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F2EB5CE.3080300@gmx.de>
References: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F2EB5CE.3080300@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:18:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbcs0UAeth4XWoLM2R9pBOPGceCJ+8oxTLoSpCM59VpWHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.171; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1RvAGZ-0004DF-Et c20626e566f28cdd44409a070f54859a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbcs0UAeth4XWoLM2R9pBOPGceCJ+8oxTLoSpCM59VpWHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12397
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1RvAI0-0008ED-7B@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:22:36 +0000

Thank you for the additional feedback. I've incorporated the suggested
changes. If you have some specific ideas for how to improve the
registry considerations, definitely please let me know as well.

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-01-31 22:28, James Snell wrote:
>>
>> I just posted an update for the HTTP Prefer Header altering the
>> intended status from "Informational" to "Standards Track". No
>> additional changes were made. As I have not received any further
>> technical input on the specification, I am issuing an *Informal* Last
>> Call for comments before I request that it be kicked up the chain for
>> review.
>>
>> Mark Nottingham has agreed to serve as the document shepherd for
>> helping to move it forward.
>>
>> Current Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-11.txt
>>
>> - James
>
>
> I think we're almost there. Some notes:
>
> s/2. The Prefer Request Header/2. The Prefer Request Header Field/
>
>
>
>  Prefer     = "Prefer" ":" 1#preference
>  preference = token [ BWS "=" BWS value ]
>               *( OWS ";" [ OWS parameter ] )
>  parameter  = token [ BWS "=" BWS value ]
>  value      = token / quoted-string
>
> Could use <word> instead of value
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.3.2.4>)
>
>
>
> s/Registry of Preferences (Section 9.1))/Registry of Preferences (Section
> 9.1)/
>
>
>
> s/In various situations, A proxy may/In various situations, a proxy may/
>
> Also: is this MAY? If not say "can". Same in other places.
>
>
>
> 2.2 Examples: end the descriptions with a colon (":").
>
> If "strict" and "lenient" are described as a mutually exclusive pair,
> shouldn't this also be the case for return-minimal vs return-representation?
>
>
>
> /This specification establishes an IANA registry of such relation types see
> Section 9.1./This specification establishes an IANA registry of such
> relation types (see Section 9.1)./
>
>
>
> 9.1:
>
> "Application Data: [optional]" -- copied from RFC 5988 (?) but doesn't make
> sense here...
>
>
>
> The httpbis references need an update.
>
>
> Finally, I notice that most registry considerations are cloned from RFC
> 5988. I'm not totally sure that this is a good idea; Mark has been
> discussing this in a different context for some time now, so I guess he'll
> have something to say :-)
>
> Best regards, Julian
>