Subject: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-04

From: James Gruessing via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 06:33:58 -0700

Reviewer: James Gruessing
Review result: Ready

This is my review of draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-04 as part of 
ART Last Call review.

Overall this is a concisely written document, and although the specification
makes it clear that its format is distinct from existing framing defined within
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 (in addition to borrowing elements from QUIC) readers who are
not already familiar with these may be at a considerable disadvantage trying to
understand this document.

Editorial Comments:

Section 3 is quite difficult to grok, and I agree with the suggestions made by
David Schinazi in his Gen-ART review. However as one additional minor suggestion
is that references to section 4 within section 3 appear repetitiously, and as
section 4 doesn't provide specific guidance for each of the invalid message
scenarios but generic text I'd suggest you include "invalid message" as a
definition in section 2 that states all usage of the word is applicable to
section 4.

Section 6 - As a suggestion I would propose the normative text around
pseudo-fields instead be placed within appropriate sub-sections of section 3,
keeping section 6 exclusively informative.

Asides from this there are no further nits or major issues to mention.

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 09:18:59 +1000

Hi James,

Thanks for the review.

I tried to move the definition of "invalid message" up, but I think that having it in the table of contents is useful enough that having it after Section 3 is necessary.  I get that the repeated references are a little annoying, but once you jump forward, I hope that the content of Section 4 is narrow enough to internalize.

Moving the normative text from Section 6 makes a lot of sense.

I made some other editorial changes as a result of trying to shuffle Section 4 around.  You can see the changes here: 
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2140
or spelled out https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/binary-artart/draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message.html (including the changes David suggested)

Cheers,
Martin

---

From: James <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 23:33:43 +0200

Hi Martin,
These changes on top of those you did as part of David's suggestions look good, and I've got nothing more to bring up.

Thanks,

- J

> On 31 May 2022, at 01:18, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
>