Hi,
I've read this document a few weeks ago, and I'm very concerned that it
apparently wasn't reviewed by the HTTP and URI community.
I'm going to comment only on a few topics. I believe there are more
things that need fixing, but let's focus on the important things first.
1) URI schemes
From the draft, it's totally unclear what the URI schemes are needed
for. For instance, the registrations do not mention what the URIs
actually identity, and how to resolve them.
I also noticed that IANA missed the fact that there are new URI schemes
to be registered
(<https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery/comment/80799/>).
2) HTTP examples
As far as I can tell, the examples in Section 11.1 are not really HTTP,
or I'm missing explanations that would be needed to understand this.
For instance, they use heldref URIs in the Request-Line of the request.
Also, there's an example where a response uses the HTTP version number
"HTTP/1.x".
3) Usage of HTTP
The protocol tunnels over HTTP instead of using HTTP, probably because
it tries to be transport-agnostic. This makes only sense if there are
other transports. Are there?
Even if the answer to that is "yes", HTTP semantics should be obeyed; if
the response to a request is an error message, it shouldn't be returned
with status code 200. There's no problem using a 4xx class status code
and returning a custom body (as we do in WebDAV).
Best regards,
Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf