Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:15:55 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cice/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've cleared the discuss on the following, since it seems that there is
precedent in how HTTP has specified this sort of thing before. But I
still think some more explicit guidance on when it's reasonable to send
and/or use "Accept-Encoding" in 2XX responses would be helpful.

section 3 says:
"Note that this information is specific to the associated request; the
   set of supported encodings might be different for other resources on
   the same server, and could change over time or depend on other
   aspects of the request (such as the request method)."

.. but then later...

"[...] However,  the header field can also be used to indicate to clients
that content
   codings are supported, to optimize future interactions.  For example,
   a resource might include it in a 2xx response when the request
   payload was big enough to justify use of a compression coding, but
   the client failed do so."

This seems to indicate a need for guidance on when the client can reuse
the Accept-Encoding value.

-- section 3, 5th paragraph:
For the two SHOULDs and one SHOULD NOT in this paragraph, can you suggest
some reasons an implementation of this spec might choose something
different?