IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: p2: Purely editorial feedback

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 08:27 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 A831E21F8FF8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, 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 BHypJNUqutFz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C266021F8F5C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTT7e-00031N-6i for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:26:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:26:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTT7e-00031N-6i@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 1UTT7b-00030i-0L for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:26:11 +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 1UTT7a-0002fl-FG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:26:10 +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 D7CFF509B5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 04:25:48 -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: <5C8F5647-EC0C-4EE2-81AF-8B1F340E3D24@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:25:48 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EAB589EB-35D5-434F-BEA3-7B251275B951@mnot.net>
References: <5C8F5647-EC0C-4EE2-81AF-8B1F340E3D24@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.296, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTT7a-0002fl-FG c06515561f33eb8a41350fdbbf127b28
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Purely editorial feedback
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/EAB589EB-35D5-434F-BEA3-7B251275B951@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17409
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>

Just a few more...

* 3.4 - "supplier of representations to the origin server" seems odd; shouldn't this just be "the resource"?

* 3.4 introduces "proactive" and "reactive" conneg, as a replacement for server-driven and agent-driven. I'm not at all sure that these terms are any better than the previous ones, and changing them may just create more confusion. Can we either find better ones, or revert to the originals?

* 3.4.2 explains reactive negotiation (i.e., where the client chooses from a list of links), and gives examples of how it's done with 300 responses, but doesn't mention that a hypertext format can support reactive negotiation natively, and therefore can happen with 200 OK responses as well (and I believe this is by far the most common form of conneg on the Web today). It would be good to illustrate this.

* 4.1 second to last paragraph talks about when Allow should be generated, but speaks about it in terms of an origin server generating the header, when it's very often implemented on a per-resource basis. Consider couching in those terms.



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email