- From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 23:43:47 -0800
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets@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-h3-websockets-02: 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-h3-websockets/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thanks for this document. Given how short this document is, I found it somewhat harder to read than I expected, and hence I have a few minor and editorial suggestions (that you are welcome to take or leave) that may improve readability. [RFC8441] defines an extension to HTTP/2 which is also useful in HTTP/3. 1. I would suggest adding the referenced doc title here rather than leading the introduction with just the RFC reference number. 2. I think that you need at least an informative reference to HTTP/2. 3. The references to both HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 should be included when they are cited in the first sentence. 3. Websockets Upgrade over HTTP/3 4. I would suggest moving the 2nd paragraph that considers stream closure to the end of section 3, since the 1st, 3rd and 4th paragraphs all seem to be more closely related in their subject matter. Thanks, Rob
Received on Monday, 31 January 2022 07:44:02 UTC