Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:32:26 -0400

A fine document, well written; I have no comments on the content.

I only have the question of why it doesn't "update" 7231.  I think it
updates Section 5.3.4, in that clients need to know that they might
now see "Accept-Encoding" in a response.  Without the "updates",
clients might be less likely to be changed to support this.  Let's
discuss this, please.

But this shouldn't get in the way of last call, so I'll go ahead and
request last call now.

Barry, ART Director

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:13:32 +0200

> A fine document, well written; I have no comments on the content.

Thanks.

> clients might be less likely to be changed to support this.  Let's

We are updating the header field registry: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-cice-latest.html#iana.considerations>. 
The assumption being that for those parts of HTTP which have IANA 
registries, the registry itself is the normative location to find the 
protocol description for a given element. This scales better than 
"updates" which always applies to a complete RFC.

> But this shouldn't get in the way of last call, so I'll go ahead and

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:18:19 -0400

> protocol description for a given element. This scales better than "updates"
> which always applies to a complete RFC.

A fair answer; thanks.  Consider that comment addressed.

Barry

---

From: Dee Holtsclaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:33:06 -0400

I know this is picking nits, but shouldn't the first sentence in section 5
(Deployment Considerations) have "already" and "are" transposed? In other
words, this:

Servers that do not support content codings in requests *are already*
required to fail a request that does use a content coding.

Instead of this (current text):

Servers that do not support content codings in requests already are
required to fail a request that does use a content coding.

I would also suggest dropping the "does" in favor of simply "uses":

Servers that do not support content codings in requests are already
required to fail a request that uses a content coding.

Apologies in advance for nitpicking.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:55:55 +0200

> Apologies in advance for nitpicking.

As that was at the end of the message, I don't see how it qualifies as
"in advance", but now I'm the one picking the silliest nits.  :-)

And no apology needed; cleaner text is always good.

> (Deployment Considerations) have "already" and "are" transposed?

No, I don't think so.  I think that "servers are already required to
eat bananas" and "servers already are required to eat bananas" mean
the same thing.  The adverb is a very flexible thing.

> Servers that do not support content codings in requests are already required
> to fail a request that uses a content coding.

On this one, I agree with you.  If the previous sentence or paragraph
had said, "If a request does not use content coding, blah blah," then
the "does" would be a useful counterpoint.  But without that, it's a
little awkward.  Julian might consider putting this on his queue of
changes, though my guess is that the RFC Editor would make this change
anyway.

Barry

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:34:50 +0200

> changes, though my guess is that the RFC Editor would make this change

-> 
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c170224b779ee206d672d2ff4d1e371af13d7831>

Thanks, Dee!