Hi, I've read this draft and it is clearly in scope as it targets one of the WG's milestones. I think it is a reasonable starting point for this work and should be adopted. (I presume that a separate document will address the second half of the milestone, namely HTTP/3.)
I wish we would all get into the habit of running idnits on our drafts. We should especially do that before putting our drafts up for adoption. So I hope we can tidy this up before this becomes a WG draft. There is also another simple format thing that should be sorted out at the same time: - The Requirements language needs to be moved from the front page down into a new Section 1.1 I also have some review comments that can be addressed before or after adoption according to the whim of the authors. Cheers, Adrian --- I'm not clear about the requirements in Section 2. You need to be careful to word the requirements as requirements. R5 and R6 currently look like statements about the design choices that were made. Some of these requirements can be classed as "ALTO/H2 must support all of the functions of the ALTO base protocol" (R0, R5). That's fine. R6 is the "obvious" requirement for this document. R7 is a reasonable new requirement, especially if there is a question of negotiating between base ALTO and ALTO/H2. However, I couldn't immediately find anywhere in the document that discusses this requirement. Actually, it would be nice if the text in the document could provide traceability back to the requirements. I can't decide whether requirements R1, R2, R3, and R4 are additional new features being introduced: - as a side effect of moving to HTTP/2 - additional functions that are really needed to support moving to HTTP/2 - additional functions being "slipped in" at the same as the work of moving to HTTP/2 Obviously, the answer to this will colour whether I think these requirements (and the bits of the solution that address them) belong in this document. --- Is Figure 3 missing, or is the figure the work flow set out above? --- Somewhere in the document (at the latest, the top of Section 4.1) you need the (rather obvious) statement that you are using the adaptation of the C-style struct notation defined in RFC 7285. --- I suggest that Section 10 should at least reference RFC 7540 for the security properties of HTTP/2. --- Section 11 could be a little clearer about what action IANA is being asked to take on which registry. ====== > Hi folks, > > This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schott-alto-new-transport/ > > Please indicate your support or objections by June 15th, 2022. > > Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware > of any IPR that applies to this draft. > > Thanks, > > -Qin/Med _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
