RE: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-h3-03: (with COMMENT)

Since the BCP14 reference was added (in PR 2373<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2373>) at Francesca’s request, I will let the two of you confer and tell me whether the reference is needed.  I don’t think the difference between OPTIONAL and optional is particularly compelling here, so I’m content either way.  It would be somewhat surprising to publish a Proposed Standard document that doesn’t use normative language, but all the actual protocol machinery is in the existing document, so I can see how it would work here.



Proposed Standard is the intended status here because RFC 8336 is Proposed Standard, and this defines a means to exercise that mechanism in HTTP/3.



-----Original Message-----
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 7:54 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-h3@ietf.org; httpbis-chairs@ietf.org; ietf-http-wg@w3.org; mnot@mnot.net
Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-h3-03: (with COMMENT)



Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-h3-03: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-origin-h3/








----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



The shepherd writeup doesn't say why Proposed Standard is the right status

here.  It's fairly obvious, but it would be great to have a complete answer on

the record.



I suggest changing "OPTIONAL" to "optional" and dropping the use of RFC

2119/8174, which isn't really necessary for this simple document.