Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-18
review-ietf-httpbis-messaging-18-artart-lc-tiloca-2021-09-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2021-09-06
Requested 2021-08-23
Authors Roy T. Fielding , Mark Nottingham , Julian Reschke
Draft last updated 2021-09-04
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Roni Even (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -18 by Marco Tiloca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Marco Tiloca
State Completed
Review review-ietf-httpbis-messaging-18-artart-lc-tiloca-2021-09-04
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/h0YTn531Xou2EKvERHW5DHLtnAg
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2021-09-04
review-ietf-httpbis-messaging-18-artart-lc-tiloca-2021-09-04-00
Thanks for this document! I have found it very well written and I believe it's
basically ready.

Please, see below some minor comments and nits.

Best,
/Marco

[Section 1.2]

* As to "absolute-path", it is more precise to point to Section 4.1 of [HTTP].

[Section 3]

* "HTTP does not place a predefined limit on the length of a request-line, as
described in Section 2 of [HTTP]"

   This can better point to Section 2.3 of [HTTP].

[Section 3.2]

* "A client MUST send a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request messages."

   This sentence can be expanded to point to Section 7.2 of [HTTP].

* "... excluding any userinfo subcomponent and its "@" delimiter ..."

   This should point to Section 4.2.4 of [HTTP].

[Section 3.3]

* "Alternatively, it might be better to redirect the request to a safe resource
that explains how to obtain a new client."

   Is "client" actually the intended word here? Or is it about using
   redirection to explain the client how to obtain something else (e.g. a
   proper authority component for a follow-up request) ?

[Section 7.1.2]

* I believe it's better for the reader if the last paragraph is split into 2 or
3 sentences :-)

[Section 9.8]

* "When encountering an incomplete close, a client SHOULD treat as completed
all requests for which it has received ..."

   Shouldn't this be about received responses? Or does it refer to the
   completion of the exchanges started by the mentioned requests?

[Appendix A]

* The first paragraph can better point to Section 5.6.1 of [HTTP].

* The reference for "absolute-path" should be Section 4.1 of [HTTP].