Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the review. Eric V also asked about that SHOULD in his review.

The main reason for being a SHOULD here (in my opinion) is that this would be unenforceable as a MUST — the client couldn’t tell if the order was different. The order also isn’t relevant for most cases, where the client would just be looking to see if it recognizes one of the names in the list (as a tracker, etc). Having it be in order is nice for consistency and for clarity when logging, etc.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:24 PM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05: 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-alias-proxy-status/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ARTART review.
> 
> Why the SHOULD near the top of Section 2?  When might one decide to deviate from that advice?
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2023 15:05:03 UTC