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

Ack, thanks Murray. BCP 14 was added because the use of OPTIONAL in the document needed it. There is not a huge difference in this case between optional and OPTIONAL, but I think it is fine as is.

Francesca

From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 14:45
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-h3@ietf.org <draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-h3@ietf.org>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org <httpbis-chairs@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, mnot@mnot.net <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-h3-03: (with COMMENT)
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 1:32 PM Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be<mailto:mbishop@evequefou.be>> wrote:

Since the BCP14 reference was added (in PR 2373<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-3ca47534bf66fca7&q=1&e=5a7f9aa5-6074-42fb-abfb-3ce90a711817&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fhttpwg%2Fhttp-extensions%2Fpull%2F2373>) 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.

Francesa is the sponsoring AD, so it's her call.  No need for us to coordinate unless she wants to discuss it.  It was just a suggestion.


 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.

Thanks for that; it's just a detail that I think should be in the writeup, but is glossed over with increasing frequency.

-MSK