- From: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 23:28:32 +0000
- To: "draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi,
Thank you for this document. Here is my review: please handle these minor comments together with any future Last Call ones. I have opened an issue with the text below in the github: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1578
Francesca
1. -----
2.1.3 next-protocol
FP: I would suggest explicitly stating that the only acceptable values are those from the "TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs" and possibly add a reference to https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#alpn-protocol-ids
2. ------
2.3.9 Connection Timeout
FP: should this also contain a note as previous and following section, stating that
"Responses with this error type might not have been
generated by the intermediary."
3. -----
3. IANA Considerations
FP: Might be overkill, but please consider explicitly stating that both registries have "Expert review" as registration policy. Also please consider if it would make sense to add a change controller and a contact field, as suggested by RFC8126.
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2021 23:28:49 UTC