Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-optimistic-upgrade-05: (with COMMENT)

On 11/09/2025 19:49, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> Hi Gorry,
>
> I've proposed text based on your comments here: 
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/3246. Please review.
>
> Regards,
> Ben Schwartz

Yes thanks Ben, I appreciate this addition, and that would address the 
comment - You could also edit further as you address any other comments 
if you feel that it would be helpful,

best wishes,


Gorry


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2025 5:27 AM
> *To:* The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* draft-ietf-httpbis-optimistic-upgrade@ietf.org 
> <draft-ietf-httpbis-optimistic-upgrade@ietf.org>; 
> httpbis-chairs@ietf.org <httpbis-chairs@ietf.org>; ietf-http-wg@w3.org 
> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; tpauly@apple.com <tpauly@apple.com>; 
> tpauly@apple.com <tpauly@apple.com>
> *Subject:* Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-httpbis-optimistic-upgrade-05: (with COMMENT)
>
>
> Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpbis-optimistic-upgrade-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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4u2ieWyw-NDPTy4TngqA_pYitFN18fNQ6AoN1rnXGoo-BfQTISOk6PfU4ofnORgEMCubcylTaSA$ 
>
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-optimistic-upgrade/__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4u2ieWyw-NDPTy4TngqA_pYitFN18fNQ6AoN1rnXGoo-BfQTISOk6PfU4ofnORgEMCubECSNjZY$ 
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for providing this useful update around linking both the old 
> and new
> http worlds.
>
> I have two comments for consideration:
>
> 1. I *think* the only normaltive change is in section 5.3, to me it 
> would be
> super-helpful if this was up-front so it cannot be lost. I wonder if a few
> sentences in section 1 could tell the reader: * There is a review of the
> background and security issues * Consideration of the impact on HTTP 
> Upgrade
> with Existing Upgrade Tokens - including normative changes in section 
> 5.3 *
> Guidance for future use of upgrade tokens and the use of HTTP CONNECT.
>
> 2. In a similar vein, for the abstract:
>
> The current abstract says the document "discusses the security 
> considerations"
> ..., and "updates RFC 9112 and RFC 9298 to avoid related security 
> issues". That
> seems true, but I wonder if it is worth saying "updates the 
> requirements in RFC
> 9112 and RFC 9298 to avoid related security issues". I'd be really sad if
> someone glanced at the abstract and skipped it thinking it was a security
> discussion rather than something they needed to action.
>
>
>