Re: p1: Purely Editorial Feedback

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 22 April 2013 04:11 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 9D7B421F86C0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 DWQeVFi1QHJR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBC321F86B2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UU7m6-0004gp-Da for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:50:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:50:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UU7m6-0004gp-Da@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU7m2-0004g5-PC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:50:38 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU7m1-0006MN-Sl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:50:38 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BF39509B8; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:50:15 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <AA4E372E-7659-4274-BC1C-D462AFAAB17F@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:50:14 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ED45FD2D-697F-4B0A-8CA7-750C8AD4BBB7@mnot.net>
References: <AA4E372E-7659-4274-BC1C-D462AFAAB17F@mnot.net>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.415, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UU7m1-0006MN-Sl a00369ad50d4452f77fb3491d9a97e74
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Purely Editorial Feedback
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ED45FD2D-697F-4B0A-8CA7-750C8AD4BBB7@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17454
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>

Now:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/446


On 20/04/2013, at 1:25 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> This is strictly editorial feedback on the latest p1.
> 
> * 2.2 "... requirements that an automated action be confirmed by the user before proceeding can be met via advance configuration choices..."   s/can/might/  (don't imply that it's a closed set)
> 
> * 2.2 Add text to indicate that the chain of intermediaries isn't necessarily fixed; i.e., that while it goes through "C" this time, the next request might go direct to origin, or through "D", or...
> 
> * 2.3 'A "gateway"... is a receiving agent that acts a a layer above some other server(s) and translates the received requests to the underlying server's protocol.'   "layer" "receiving agent" and "underlying" are awkward here. Suggest:
> 
> """
> A "gateway" (a.k.a., "reverse proxy") is a server that acts as an origin server, but translates received requests and forwards them to another server or servers, using any protocol (possibly HTTP).
> """
> 
> * 2.3 "MUST implement the Connection and Via header fields for both connections." --> "... header fields for both inbound and outbound connections."
> 
> * 2.7.1 "Other protocols might also be used..." -> "Other transport protocols might also be used..."
> 
> * 4.3 "For chained requests..." -> "For requests from an intermediary..." 
> 
> * 5.2 "If the client has a response cache and the request semantics can be satisfied by a cache ([Part6]), then the request is usually directed to the cache first." --> "If the client has a HTTP cache [Part6] and the request can be satisfied by it, then the request is usually directed there first."  (simplify, simplify)
> 
> * 5.7.2 "A transforming proxy MUST preserve the message payload..."  "MUST NOT modify" would be clearer here.
> 
> * 6. "HTTP only presumes a reliable transport with in-order delivery of requests and the corresponding responses."   This isn't really well-stated; the important thing is that the data transport itself is in-order, because requests and responses themselves can be chunked into multiple messages.  Suggest: 
> 
> "HTTP only presumes a reliable, bi-directional transport with in-order delivery."
> 
> * 6. "Most severs are designed to maintain thousands of concurrent connections.."   s/thousands/many/
> 
> * 6. "Most clients maintain multiple connections in parallel..." --> "Clients MAY maintain multiple connections in parallel..."
> 
> * 6.7 uses unregistered upgrade tokens in the example; this should be noted.
> 
> * 6.7 There should be a full example of an Upgrade header in a request and in a response.
> 
> * 8.3 There should be an appropriate reference to RFC6585 here for 431 Request Header Fields Too Large.
> 
> * A.2 Is there any particular ordering here? Perhaps they should be ordered by section?  (same for other parts)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/