Binary Representation of HTTP Messages
draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-06
Yes
Erik Kline
No Objection
John Scudder
Paul Wouters
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(Alvaro Retana)
(Andrew Alston)
(Martin Duke)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Erik Kline
Yes
Francesca Palombini
Yes
Comment
(2022-06-09 for -05)
Not sent
To the IESG: please see my email https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iesg/Kd9FT-a1mP6f1T9OILg9erpcc5c/ about using this markdown format https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md and following points https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/Preferred-Review-Policy for this review. Thank you!
John Scudder
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment
(2022-06-16 for -05)
Sent
# ART AD comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05 ## Comments ### IANA Considerations "Optional Parameters" in Section 7 should be "N/A", not "None". See RFC 6838, Section 5.6.
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2022-06-14 for -05)
Not sent
Thank you to Daniel Migault for the SECDIR review.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
(was Discuss)
No Objection
Comment
(2022-06-16 for -05)
Sent
Clearing my 'process' DISCUSS as the milestone has been added to the HTTPBIS WG. I find this document really useful; even if I have doubts about standards track rather than informational as for the expired PCAP I-D in OPSAWG. -éric
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2022-06-16 for -05)
Sent
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05 CC @larseggert Thanks to David Schinazi for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/HtcQ-wh6s1JXaRP8ECbfBGy8egc). ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Outdated references Reference `[RFC2518]` to `RFC2518`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4918` (this may be on purpose). ### Grammar/style #### "Table of Contents", paragraph 1 ``` TTP messages that can be conveyed outside of an HTTP protocol. This enables t ^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This phrase is redundant. Consider using "outside". #### Section 3.2, paragraph 9 ``` gth messages can be truncated in a similar way as known-length messages; see ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "similarly" to avoid wordiness. #### Section 5.2, paragraph 7 ``` oundaries do not need to be retained and any chunk extensions cannot be conv ^^^^ ``` Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2022-06-13 for -05)
Sent
# AD Review for draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05 Thanks for a well-written document. My comments are below. Running ietf-comments locally doesn't seem to correct parse my markdown nit comment ... ## Discuss ## Comments ## Nits ### Structure of section 3 A few related mostly nits that I've grouped in a single comment related to this section. > Section 6 of [HTTP] defines five distinct parts to HTTP messages. A > framing indicator is added to signal how these parts are composed: 1. This references 5 distinct parts, then has a list of 7 items. 2. I'm not convinced that the list follows the section sentence, and perhaps could be better introduced in a new sentence. 3. Everything in the list starts with what it is, except for item 2, which is then inconsistently structured relative to item 3.