Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18
review-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18-genart-lc-schinazi-2020-05-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-05-04
Requested 2020-04-20
Authors Mark Nottingham, Poul-Henning Kamp
Draft last updated 2020-05-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -18 by David Schinazi (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David Schinazi
State Completed
Review review-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18-genart-lc-schinazi-2020-05-04
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/zGVd83mdw0jva2rftKJQQezwX7A
Reviewed rev. 18 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-05-04

Review
review-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18-genart-lc-schinazi-2020-05-04

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?