Re: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> Tue, 12 May 2020 12:30 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29333A0857 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yoav-ws.20150623.gappssmtp.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 2XsbiKGCTfEy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 05:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F2773A083C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 05:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jYU0F-0003I9-9s for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 12:27:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 12:27:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jYU0F-0003I9-9s@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1jYU0D-0003HJ-EZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 12:27:17 +0000
Received: from mail-lj1-x243.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::243]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1jYU0B-0001vI-J1 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 12:27:17 +0000
Received: by mail-lj1-x243.google.com with SMTP id g4so13410555ljl.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 05:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yoav-ws.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9UQ7ePGNhgI6sdYD3efSJKy5Y+AcIf5aVsQa8HZrxwY=; b=ODQb4IrOU85QVP5Y23b1af4M6f5v6prtbyznumaWZ29/lSU9Viyr1KTy0qZcxg0HWM UuCpUO9jyFMSyd+aa+Evkv1EnLdALLBLeXcNlCXYRhFwDB/6hRElIyUmKWQ+MQU50Jiz F7CEOdf3Bg0Xgv5Xny804+PWdHlWEHPTrBVVAVMhuiAi9eB+o4t+pWJnSBxv+wiM70/e sGHB4O7r268e/TpOsBVadBzjgZ2i5rJPn9VVhdv4Uan9CNTalARyH+2QZwGiKlJsicCe fuCXA9mPfnaT7BK+O/+hy2TDDMnwvrpSEtok022/D2fVM38+CDmk+QRq17/RxQrnRgm2 OHcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9UQ7ePGNhgI6sdYD3efSJKy5Y+AcIf5aVsQa8HZrxwY=; b=MgrRS/F2G0C6RDEqyziO/T9vvqWRtWQHlrw5nO/uD8/flrzy2HaSUuvb7mPbaG30Tq S1l+9qH15A8ZhH2XTa8PTi+8aW/icA7hmZa3SqV/efH+oFQ1u8x6BLV4DDwPnfozEYz2 d58Rws7RXjA7YRK5NaNeKVSDNvD+fJ9+kPJQkt//ehxEvEn8TajOfezFuWXGS7QrvP0G RUcpUGLvNIbxKyjzqn6JzG4z5Q0e8T2h/vDBNcTmnKxXIXqVSryk5ZTbgZKoJOorz7I0 YYBa2XmUmFB9D5dWbguUjQq4fsx9Lr9kN6qv10F6RW3rW6UdiSv2g7LOdzQYuU24CFJX dmQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533q/DhnvLZ7DC4u1KuiV49Jl0BoGbBKUELMpBMH2iGJh3ROLvAU 2OgtG8TepRUbjewj2ofetoVVR7XvN8m4CBEFkWr7sg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxH7PQ/DcQ03bM3SzErqC3oQbJb+Arqpkuu2qCndl5OTRjDq2zdXF3XAdD0XdPBXtGOWycQ6alUk59OnXxcDrY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1055:: with SMTP id x21mr13154631ljm.210.1589286423922; Tue, 12 May 2020 05:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158918148633.7663.8924410874014459568@ietfa.amsl.com> <CACj=BEhN7omYjpQQQ=jKkp8XiP+hpKt+KnDAShwG+Jp0e_YFhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYe=Nmeutmvy6Z0m5G3MDjrL0Hq9Wb0y42mt9L-nS3k7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYe=Nmeutmvy6Z0m5G3MDjrL0Hq9Wb0y42mt9L-nS3k7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 14:26:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CACj=BEiipOHH3FaqbYokdoC2Nrnj6zEfmhDvcc3Xa_oQHOqFjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bea03e05a5729433"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::243; envelope-from=yoav@yoav.ws; helo=mail-lj1-x243.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: mimas.w3.org 1jYU0B-0001vI-J1 affc7b580f090b0367269e14b5cd23a1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACj=BEiipOHH3FaqbYokdoC2Nrnj6zEfmhDvcc3Xa_oQHOqFjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37598
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 7:24 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for replying.  As a reminder, once you've dealt with the IANA
> concern, the rest of these comments are non-blocking.  However, I'm happy
> to discuss them too.
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:58 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
>
>>
>> * "Implementers SHOULD be aware ..." -- this feels like an
>>> awkward construction; might I choose not to be aware?
>>>
>>
>> MUST be aware?
>>
>
> Just "need to be aware".  I find it awkward to apply
> compliance/requirements language to people.
>
> * "Such features SHOULD take
>>> into account ..." -- same issue as before, this seems an odd use of BCP
>>> 14
>>> language
>>
>> * "User agents SHOULD consider ..." -- same
>>
>> * "Implementers ought to
>>> consider ..." -- why is this only "ought to" given the prior SHOULDs?
>>>
>>
>> Would turning all those to a MUST work?
>>
>
> In the third bullet I was trying to illustrate my point: I think it makes
> more sense not to use requirements language when talking about people, so
> that one seems right to me.
>
> RFC2119 Section 6 gives guidance that's relevant here.
>
> In the first two bullets above, I don't know how to measure compliance
> with the requirement that a feature SHOULD take something into account, or
> SHOULD consider something.  I think the guidance you're providing needs to
> either be more direct and explain what compliance looks like, or not use
> these key words at all (at least not in their all-caps forms) if all you
> want to do is bring a particular topic to the attention of an implementer.
>
> You also have a "SHOULD take into account" wrapping a list that has two
> SHOULD NOTs in it.  I don't know how to interpret that.
>

Thanks for clarifying. I'll change those to "need to", as you suggested.


>
> Section 6.1:
>>> * Why does "Specification document(s)" refer to only a specific section
>>> of this
>>> document?  Isn't the whole document applicable?
>>>
>>
>> Sure. It's currently pointing at the specific section that defines the
>> header, but I can change it to refer to the whole document if that's
>> preferred.
>>
>
> The registration document says you can do it either way.  I just find
> identifying a specific section to be unusual and I was curious.
>

I don't think there was a particular reason for that, other than trying to
point folks at the relevant section.


>
> -MSK
>