Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 05 February 2012 17:03 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 1FC5021F8468 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:03:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.752, 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 SdKSrPDSvGBJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED4421F8547 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:03:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ru5TP-0003df-E4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:01:55 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Ru5TC-0003aa-Ox for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:01:42 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by maggie.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Ru5T9-0005Nl-Aw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:01:42 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Feb 2012 17:01:11 -0000
Received: from p5DCC2AE9.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.42.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 05 Feb 2012 18:01:11 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+P2l1Z4pyPOpus+BvP848WEmwL++hvol8Uw//2Wa PWg4UpFbObM+2y
Message-ID: <4F2EB5CE.3080300@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:01:02 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ru5T9-0005Nl-Aw 48d767a7eeec6201645a528e451a9ee8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F2EB5CE.3080300@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12316
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: <E1Ru5TP-0003df-E4@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:01:55 +0000

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