- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2023 11:39:39 +1000
- To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip.all@ietf.org, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, masque@ietf.org
Looks good, thanks. > On 7 Apr 2023, at 12:33 am, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the review Mark! > > We've addressed your comments in draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-09. > > David > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:59 AM Mark Nottingham via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Mark Nottingham > Review result: Ready with Issues > > # HTTPDIR comments for draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08 > > I am an assigned HTTP directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip. > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the ART 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 HTTP Directorate, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. > > Overall, I find the document well written and understandable. I only have > questions on clarifications and think the draft is ready with nits for > publication. > > ## Comment > > ### Intermediaries > > In 4.1. IP Proxy Handling, the first bullet says: > > > if the recipient is configured to use another HTTP proxy, it will act as an > intermediary by forwarding the request to another HTTP server. > > The nature of this intermediary isn't very clear, but I believe that for it to > function it needs support for the capsule protocol *and* this protocol; if so, > that should be stated explicitly. > > Also, sections 4.3 and 4.5 specify how IP Proxies are to respond to a > tunnelling request, but do not specify how the intermediary role created in 4.1 > is to respond to such a request; nor is it specified elsewhere, as far as I can > tell. This can be addressed by broadening the first sentences in 4.3 and 4.5 to > apply to both IP proxies and intermediaries that support this protocol. > > ## Nits > > In the abstract, the word 'proxy' is used without qualification. It would be > better to use the term 'IP proxy'. > > In 4.3. HTTP/1.1 Response, 'abort the connection' is not typical usage (e.g., > in RFC9112); suggest 'close the connection'. > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 7 April 2023 01:39:51 UTC