Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18
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
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
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?