W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2021

AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05

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>
Message-ID: <0D60522B-D62D-4FD3-8A4A-27F54108CE7F@ericsson.com>

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 


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 21 July 2021 23:28:52 UTC