Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David, thanks for your review and thanks to everyone for the discussion. As I noted in my No Objection ballot, it seems like at a minimum the options available for integers larger than 10^15 should be noted somewhere so that readers are alert to it, even if no particular option is recommended.

Alissa


> On May 4, 2020, at 9:18 PM, David Schinazi via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: David Schinazi
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18
> Reviewer: David Schinazi
> Review Date: 2020-05-04
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-04
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This document was clear and well-written. I found no issues and noted
> some number of small nits below.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> In s1.2 (Notational Conventions), I didn't understand what greedy meant in:
>   In some places, the algorithms are "greedy" with
>   whitespace, but this should not affect conformance.
> 
> In s2 (Defining New Structured Fields), perhaps "Reference this specification."
>  should instead be "Normatively reference this specification." ?
> 
> In s2, the definition of Foo-Example Header seems to be enclosed in
>  "--8<--" and "-->8--" in the TXT version, could be a bug in the tools?
> 
> In s3.1.2 and s3.2, in the example, I was confused by "a=?0" and "b=?0" until I
> s3.3.6.
>    Perhaps reordering sections or adding a reference would help?
> 
> Should there be some guidance for defining new integer fields that don't fit in
> 10^15?
>    Is a String the recommended approach?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux