p1: Purely Editorial Feedback

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 03:27 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096E521F925B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.274
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TogVnJ1WJicA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055BB21F905F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTOQn-0004P3-KK for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:25:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:25:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTOQn-0004P3-KK@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTOQi-0004OO-QK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:25:36 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTOQh-0003XS-S4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:25:36 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF0FD509B8; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:25:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:25:09 +1000
Message-Id: <AA4E372E-7659-4274-BC1C-D462AFAAB17F@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; 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=-3.347, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTOQh-0003XS-S4 7e63083a6fb11436a8dd926b9358faad
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: p1: Purely Editorial Feedback
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/AA4E372E-7659-4274-BC1C-D462AFAAB17F@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17370
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>

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)


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