Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 03 September 2015 14:18 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41871B31AE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e92m8KFxTIc8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC3E41A6F03 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZXVJX-0006j3-QZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:16:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:16:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZXVJX-0006j3-QZ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ben@nostrum.com>) id 1ZXVJT-0006gZ-Mi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:16:27 +0000
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ben@nostrum.com>) id 1ZXVJR-0004qs-0M for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:16:27 +0000
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE901B2F8D; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iaC1fZwFxdNO; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7821ACD4E; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Message-ID: <20150903141555.3960.13630.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:15:55 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=4.31.198.44; envelope-from=ben@nostrum.com; helo=mail.ietf.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1ZXVJR-0004qs-0M 9713dba82a9ec328bf08a0b6cfe192f6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20150903141555.3960.13630.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30171
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>
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cice/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I've cleared the discuss on the following, since it seems that there is precedent in how HTTP has specified this sort of thing before. But I still think some more explicit guidance on when it's reasonable to send and/or use "Accept-Encoding" in 2XX responses would be helpful. section 3 says: "Note that this information is specific to the associated request; the set of supported encodings might be different for other resources on the same server, and could change over time or depend on other aspects of the request (such as the request method)." .. but then later... "[...] However, the header field can also be used to indicate to clients that content codings are supported, to optimize future interactions. For example, a resource might include it in a 2xx response when the request payload was big enough to justify use of a compression coding, but the client failed do so." This seems to indicate a need for guidance on when the client can reuse the Accept-Encoding value. -- section 3, 5th paragraph: For the two SHOULDs and one SHOULD NOT in this paragraph, can you suggest some reasons an implementation of this spec might choose something different?
- Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis… Ben Campbell