On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:02 PM Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net> wrote:
> Hi David, > > Thanks for the comments. Responses below; I've committed in < > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/001023>. > Thanks for making the changes! That commit looks good to me. > > On 5 May 2020, at 11:18 am, David Schinazi via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > In s1.2 (Notational Conventions), I didn't understand what greedy meant > in: > > In some places, the algorithms are "greedy" with > > whitespace, but this should not affect conformance. > > Hmm, I think we can remove that sentence. > > > In s2 (Defining New Structured Fields), perhaps "Reference this > specification." > > should instead be "Normatively reference this specification." ? > > Sounds good. > > > In s2, the definition of Foo-Example Header seems to be enclosed in > > "--8<--" and "-->8--" in the TXT version, could be a bug in the tools? > > Our AD commented that it was difficult to distinguish the example spec > text from the surrounding spec text in the text/plain rendering. These > "scissor" marks were intended to serve that purpose; I suppose they're not > as common as they used to be. My assumption is that the RFC Editor is going > to propose a more suitable way to do this. > Ah! Now I see it :) Happy to let the RFC editor decide what's best here. > > In s3.1.2 and s3.2, in the example, I was confused by "a=?0" and "b=?0" > until I > > s3.3.6. > > Perhaps reordering sections or adding a reference would help? > > I think a reference. > > > Should there be some guidance for defining new integer fields that don't > fit in > > 10^15? > > Is a String the recommended approach? > > I'm a little wary of giving a single recommendation here; it depends on > the use case. It might be that it would be better to use two integers, for > example, and add, multiply or otherwise combine them. Or it might make > sense to implicitly multiple (e.g., *100) the value. Or it might make sense > to yes, use a string -- or binary. > Sounds good. I was mainly curious because I defined a sh-integer in one of my drafts for a value that can in theory go up to 2^62-1, and I wonder if it's worth the added complexity to support values between 10^15 and 2^62... https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schinazi-masque-connect-udp-00#section-5 But we can figure that out in the context of that draft, no need to answer that question in draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure if there's no easy solution that fits all.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
