Re: Editorial Issues: Section 4.2.2

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 23:47 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 2D40521F9120 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.239, 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 cD3mMn5Ia5vg for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A48A21F8DCF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UV9O5-0001eE-RE for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:46:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:46:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UV9O5-0001eE-RE@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UV9Nz-0001bd-1S for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:46:03 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UV9Nu-0005XP-52 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:46:02 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id h11so7971517wiv.8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3edzPi9StpOX429wpBFV8Y8EtXBPsxI7UAxnY084Xvo=; b=vbgDziTGL2460E3SJDDfWALhtewzCNT655XNO+QxKLgg/muOtOER8owp/964VkV1nr AisPaHJpDPTW/MusjJpnvjZ7uyt5OlobyNiFNH8M7ZXOUMA6sytsEWNqU8pyeuJOge32 bNUy8AVTatbUrzm5qfC+eToNvqEatWDKcH2mtnFT7mu98XUVQruDv9jBMHtDlJQ05Yqn KPpnqA7LIpks6KnWzKUy795g1zxWEvs1nMPDMC3M9qYGlrMNeMB7u47E+NHPqtivOELK 9FgMrnuzsue2BB67RluCt7GVLk1dGK5xKya491maogLA/5n79cOCfTocycTl7F3rlaeF QUHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.74.146 with SMTP id t18mr55892023wiv.26.1366847131655; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.33.102 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7Rbe6BjPzFwz1oAmyk0Xmvrk=jat3mq65JfyHRoKQQwjsog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7Rbfh_V0GVameQzF-5RC+GQa7=XTQoZ3E4vZ5Uu+PL_1w8g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXATq1RPUe8ZmzZdUNO6weXE9+Q-nYjJOEMa0NJbJkiHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbe6BjPzFwz1oAmyk0Xmvrk=jat3mq65JfyHRoKQQwjsog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:45:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWTV_Fcy32nRVjYqa+hK7RpUZt-1K3gRTgAEuCWz7fRYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.669, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UV9Nu-0005XP-52 3ec85ef1ff157f229a2919460f5c3c76
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Editorial Issues: Section 4.2.2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWTV_Fcy32nRVjYqa+hK7RpUZt-1K3gRTgAEuCWz7fRYw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17559
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>

If you believe that the issue is purely editorial - a wording change,
moving stuff into more logical places, etc... - then just open the
pull request.  Poke an editor if you see it neglected.

If you aren't sure, come to the list.  You might get a "yeah, that's
just editorial" response, but it gives people a chance to discuss it.

Key goals are: a) conduct technical discussions on the list, and b)
conduct technical discussions on the list.  Too much editorial (and
procedural) stuff drives down the signal to noise ratio.  Too little
and you risk having edits go in without working group input.

On 24 April 2013 11:19, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Martin Thomson
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> Hey James,
>>
>>
>> On 24 April 2013 10:11, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>> Recommend reworking this to:
>>>
>>>   The following fields MUST be present in all HTTP requests:
>>>
>>>   ":method":  the HTTP method for this request (e.g.  "GET", "POST",
>>>   "HEAD", etc) ([HTTP-p2], Section 4)
>>>
>>>   ":path":  the request-target for this URI with "/"
>>>   prefixed (see [HTTP-p1], Section 3.1.1).  For example, for
>>>   "http://www.google.com/search?q=dogs" the path would be
>>>   "/search?q=dogs". [[anchor26: what forms of the HTTPbis
>>>   request-target are allowed here?]]
>>>
>>>   ":host":  the host and optional port portions (see [RFC3986],
>>>   Section 3.2) of the URI for this request (e.g. "www.google.com:
>>>   1234").  This header field is the same as the HTTP 'Host'
>>>   header field ([HTTP-p1], Section 5.4).
>>>
>>>   ":scheme":  the scheme portion of the URI for this request (e.g.
>>>   "https")
>>
>> Feel free to send a pull request for this.  I see no reason not to
>> make this sort of change.
>>
>> There are a lot of less obvious edits of this nature.  From my
>> perspective, there are too many to fix at once.  For instance, the
>> entirety of Section 5 needs to be moved to more relevant locations.
>>
>> There's no reason why you can't just raise an issue or pull request
>> for editorial stuff that bugs you.
>>
>
> I can submit pull requests. Is there a specific process the editors
> would like re: pull requests? For instance, posting a note here on
> list when a pull request is submitted so that everyone can be aware of
> the suggested change?
>
> - James
>