Binary Representation of HTTP Messages
draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-06

[Ballot comment]
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

[Ballot comment]
# 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### Outdated references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

[Ballot comment]
# 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.

[Ballot discuss]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05
cc @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. And I really mean it even when balloting a blocking DISCUSS because it will be useful. BTW, I sincerely hate to be process-focused and I hope to stand corrected quickly.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points, which may be resolved during the IESG formal telechat.

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Does it fit HTTPBIS charter ?

While I think that this document is useful (even if I have doubts about standards track rather than informational as for the expired PCAP I-D in OPSAWG), I fail to see how this document fits the HTTPBIS charter. The only potential way is at the end of the charter:
```
# Other HTTP-Related Work

The Working Group may define extensions and other documents related to HTTP as work items, provided that:

* They are generic; i.e., not specific to one application using HTTP. Note that Web browsing by definition is a generic use.

* The Working Group Chairs judge that there is consensus to take on the item and believe that it will not interfere with the work described above, and

* The Area Director approves the addition and add corresponding milestones.
```

But I do not see any related milestone to this document.

Moving this document to AD sponsored is probably the right way.

## 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.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
# 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.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the message registry on the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Name: bhttp
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Michelle Thangtamsatid
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Binary Representation of HTTP Messages) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the HTTP WG (httpbis) to consider the
following document: - 'Binary Representation of HTTP Messages'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-06-03. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a binary format for representing HTTP messages.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Writeup

## Document History

Answer either of the two options below (depending on the document type), then continue with the common part.

### Option 1: For Documents Coming from IETF Working Groups

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document enjoyed reasonably wide review and discussion throughout the group. It was not a particularly active discussion, but a variety of folks appear to have looked at it and thought about it.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No.


## Common Part

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html) recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Yes - see datatracker.


### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document defines one media type that will require review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools](https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html)?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.


### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter](https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics). Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

Of the listed topics, this draft involves HTTP.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best  Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Because it's likely to be referenced by OHAI documents, and it has WG consensus. Yes, the datatracker appears to reflect that intent.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78) and [BCP 79](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The author has confirmed that no IPR exists to his knowledge.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

It's Martin's document, so I believe so.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool](http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document.

I-D nits flags several issues, but none seem germane.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

They are all now correct, I believe.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html), [BCP 97](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97))? If so, list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are a number of references in the RFC Editor Queue, all in AUTH48 or beyond.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs  listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the  introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html)).

The document registers one new media type, and appears to do so correctly.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Not applicable.

# Document Shepherd Writeup

## Document History

Answer either of the two options below (depending on the document type), then continue with the common part.

### Option 1: For Documents Coming from IETF Working Groups

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document enjoyed reasonably wide review and discussion throughout the group. It was not a particularly active discussion, but a variety of folks appear to have looked at it and thought about it.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No.


## Common Part

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html) recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Yes - see datatracker.


### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document defines one media type that will require review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools](https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html)?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.


### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter](https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics). Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

Of the listed topics, this draft involves HTTP.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best  Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Because it's likely to be referenced by OHAI documents, and it has WG consensus. Yes, the datatracker appears to reflect that intent.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78) and [BCP 79](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The author has confirmed that no IPR exists to his knowledge.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

It's Martin's document, so I believe so.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool](http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document.

I-D nits flags several issues, but none seem germane.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

They are all now correct, I believe.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html), [BCP 97](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97))? If so, list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are a number of references in the RFC Editor Queue, all in AUTH48 or beyond.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs  listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the  introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html)).

The document registers one new media type, and appears to do so correctly.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Not applicable.