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

Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-13

From: David Schinazi via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:36:09 -0700
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis.all@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, last-call@ietf.org
Message-ID: <162879336918.10574.10010152000496998787@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reviewer: David Schinazi
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For
more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-13
Reviewer: David Schinazi
Review Date: 2021-08-12
IETF LC End Date: 2021-07-23
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Well-written and easy to read document.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
* s4.5 seems to prohibit defining new non-generic HTTP methods. How do we
reconcile that with the work happening in MASQUE? I know that CONNECT is its
own special-case, but should we have a carveout here? (Though MASQUE might end
up using extended CONNECT which side steps the issue). Or is it the case that
MASQUE is modifying HTTP itself instead of building an application over HTTP?

Nits/editorial comments:
* s3.2 uses the term "link" without explaining what it is. Perhaps a reference
to RFC 8288 if that's what is meant here? * s4.11 mentions HTTP/3 without
referencing its specification
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2021 18:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 12 August 2021 18:36:25 UTC