Subject: Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 08:25:34 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-18: 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-header-structure/

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

== Discuss resolved, as have these nits below.

Thanks for this noble attempt to tame the wildness that is the HTTP spec!

Comments:
- While this is by no means a required change to publish this document, I found
the order of Section 3 to be backwards from what would easiest to follow. The
higher-order concepts (e.g. lists) are defined first, and refer to low-level
concepts (like items) that are not defined till the end of the section.

Nits:
- In Sec 3.1.2, it might be useful to explain that in example-IntHeader, a is
TRUE.

- sec 3.2. Can you add some text to make it clear that the value in dictionary
entries is only optional (in brackets) because of Boolean TRUE? This was not
clear to me until I read sec. 4.1.2.

- Sec 4. s/before HPACK is applied/before compression with HPACK
(A receiver "applies" HPACK to decompress, and presumably before doing this
parsing)

- Sec 4.2. s/header value/field value