Skip to main content

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
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### Outdated references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.