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

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 00:06:26 -0700

Murray Kucherawy 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this work.

I support Benjamin's DISCUSS point about case sensitivity especially with
respect to how a consumed dictionary should be used.  It's fine if you want to
say that the rules for key matching are left to the authors of specifications
of future structured fields, but if that's the case, please do say so.

Should Section 3.1 be explicit that lists are ordered?  It does say "array" but
some definitions I found for that term don't explicitly say anything about
order either, just a "collection".

As my colleagues have already done a rather thorough job, all I have left is a
few nits:

Nits:

Section 3.1.2:
* "... key-values pairs ..." -- s/values/value/

Section 3.2:
* First paragraph, two instances of "items" should be capitalized.
* "Note that dictionaries ..." -- capitalize "dictionaries"
* "... Inner List of tokens:" -- capitalize "tokens"
* "A Dictionary with a mix of singular and list values ..." -- capitalize
"list", and maybe "Item" instead of "singular"?

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 17:12:14 +1000

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the feedback. See responses below.

> On 21 May 2020, at 5:06 pm, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I believe this was addressed as part of Ben's DISCUSS.

> order either, just a "collection".

I don't think that's confused anyone to date; if it were unordered, we'd say "set."

> * "... key-values pairs ..." -- s/values/value/

Already covered by your colleagues :)

> "list", and maybe "Item" instead of "singular"?

See <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/a1d48ea7132>.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 00:42:03 -0700

> I don't think that's confused anyone to date; if it were unordered, we'd

It's more that you were so precise about just about everything else, this
detail seemed absent.  But if it's clear enough to everyone already, ship
it.

-MSK