- From: Benno Overeinder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 14:04:04 -0700
- To: <int-dir@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status.all@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, last-call@ietf.org
Reviewer: Benno Overeinder Review result: Ready with Nits Intdir Review draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-06 I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-06. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. Overall I find the document to be well written and understandable. I think the draft is ready with nits for publication. Section Abstract could provide a little more explanation, such as one or two examples of how to use the error reporting (as explained in the Introduction). At the beginning of Section 2, should it be stated that Proxy-Status HTTP Fields are only added to responses towards the user agent? So explicitly state that an intermediary only adds Proxy-Status HTTP Field towards the user agent and not towards the origin server? (It is implied by the use of the word "response" of course and other text in this section.) In Section 2.1, the following paragraph is a bit confusing to me: Unless a Proxy Error Type specifies otherwise, the presences of error often, but not always, indicates that response was generated by the proxy, not the origin server or any other upstream server. For example, a proxy might attempt to correct an error, or part of a response might be forwarded before the error is encountered. I read the sentence "For example, a proxy might ..." as the situation where the next intermediary will generate the error message. Is that correct?
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2021 21:04:17 UTC