Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18

Mark Nottingham <> Tue, 05 May 2020 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CC13A13D5 for <>; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.75
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=WlV0YGNe; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Rjq4kHnS
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o4ud0ciHJ_Jz for <>; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:05:45 -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 190C33A13D3 for <>; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jVpix-0000mq-PX for; Tue, 05 May 2020 05:02:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 05:02:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jVpiw-0000m5-4x for; Tue, 05 May 2020 05:02:30 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jVpit-0002Fr-S4 for; Tue, 05 May 2020 05:02:29 +0000
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73EC5C0082; Tue, 5 May 2020 01:02:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 May 2020 01:02:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=A oa7Th/m7AQNEHGQNX2BFYFt7rGgR5kaB/xkmpgAtew=; b=WlV0YGNe1gJzRLIG7 YJsisyNDCfbpFobHeWKdhflT28E5WoZpOUUqpqOffv7ozCUBqlJzXeS7swPLBTzK oGXd2ge5pX9PQz5W0cGb8sA8MvP2NOtMXe6IXgPZtBY3LOs3AAaKS7KoFIjHCtub VO4Ypbty4Cfcs10zFDOKQ5KAaZE32A2EEQP0lOk6FDZ/3qEWxISZlDSjIqAMr3r3 PbttRIkBj3zSIxNTXWvffZ/Twr8K6qlrgUA5JBn4PkLqcxASZednsVWywedY3v8l tznouoBZj5TA1bbiSCSz+5P4kV7od8T/+i8ryD0i+PwYwBO0cQwv/z3vzArqKbht gHV/A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Aoa7Th/m7AQNEHGQNX2BFYFt7rGgR5kaB/xkmpgAt ew=; b=Rjq4kHnSXgKhxifeS9Jsxls3YlO13dS4oiWCtxh9W9pxEN+3coyAw/Hmp wi5HXP16Le0GAfwxtYSuqcEOugNxJHM+lY6B6gnf5ZH7O10tLuH20z5W9Hmdch0k WeI07Fm5HyCC8CSbjz7V4zClqWk8zzMZbOLfqqblpah4CwtM8ZN++PGFX8Dcj27i bt0Z5sCKHWqHgJrcD9t+W9TC7Ej8mtPjxq52LoByAA2NigN3L0xCvI6fsMUX+UdU lDsYZaCkiert/VKOg1gw5JQ5s8bHMESZhu7oN8lCNwL5WTBcToKzKxgLm+6OMn3T qPmyq5TpA0KF2s1wnsYXGTZpd9ZWA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:VPOwXkcz2Mc22JlVHcLZJxv3SLhbAv_qdtG0PqoO8HeZAmhePgiMOA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeehgdekkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmh dthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhn ohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeelffdvueevffffkeeggfffueegheelke ekteejlefhleekveekudeiieevvdetgfenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhm pdhmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepudduledrudejrdduheekrddvhedunecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdr nhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:VPOwXryM0aAk1-e71m12h5dvqBZaClzvUZegJ5vEEa7ZXTMLnYzM7A> <xmx:VPOwXniroM7xGT2PFFn1aimRvsTeruD4I-wH67VRBFMu7NbOagofcA> <xmx:VPOwXod2DL_zweb-zKwKQZqwzLQmnCIspoUwqH661E8kapfWtshypQ> <xmx:VvOwXrtZKZir5MZBsgrhfL-iDAWWWUibqYjRqSngnW-AaQ_dxL50TA>
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0E41E3280068; Tue, 5 May 2020 01:02:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 15:02:07 +1000
Cc:,, HTTP Working Group <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: David Schinazi <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1jVpit-0002Fr-S4 37f5cb7bcd6775eb05697273cace1bb3
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/37563
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Hi David,

Thanks for the comments. Responses below; I've committed in <>.

> On 5 May 2020, at 11:18 am, David Schinazi via Datatracker <> wrote:
> Nits/editorial comments:
> In s1.2 (Notational Conventions), I didn't understand what greedy meant in:
>   In some places, the algorithms are "greedy" with
>   whitespace, but this should not affect conformance.

Hmm, I think we can remove that sentence.

> In s2 (Defining New Structured Fields), perhaps "Reference this specification."
>  should instead be "Normatively reference this specification." ?

Sounds good.

> In s2, the definition of Foo-Example Header seems to be enclosed in
>  "--8<--" and "-->8--" in the TXT version, could be a bug in the tools?

Our AD commented that it was difficult to distinguish the example spec text from the surrounding spec text in the text/plain rendering. These "scissor" marks were intended to serve that purpose; I suppose they're not as common as they used to be. My assumption is that the RFC Editor is going to propose a more suitable way to do this.

> In s3.1.2 and s3.2, in the example, I was confused by "a=?0" and "b=?0" until I
> s3.3.6.
>    Perhaps reordering sections or adding a reference would help?

I think a reference.

> Should there be some guidance for defining new integer fields that don't fit in
> 10^15?
>    Is a String the recommended approach?

I'm a little wary of giving a single recommendation here; it depends on the use case. It might be that it would be better to use two integers, for example, and add, multiply or otherwise combine them. Or it might make sense to implicitly multiple (e.g., *100) the value. Or it might make sense to yes, use a string -- or binary.

Cheers and thanks again,

Mark Nottingham