- From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 03:49:01 -0800
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net, mnot@mnot.net
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Not much to say - another well written document update - I only reviewed the diff. One minor comment/nit, Section 5.3.1. Background of Priority in HTTP/2 HTTP/2 included a rich system for signaling priority of requests. However, this system proved to be complex and it was not uniformly implemented. Given that this document obsoletes RFC7540 and becomes the reference for HTTP/2 then I would suggest that this section would be better introduced as "RFC7540 included a rich system ..." Regards, Rob
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2022 11:49:16 UTC