Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental-03: (with COMMENT)

Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental-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-incremental/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Chris Lonvick for their secdir review.

General:  A well written, easy to read specification.  I just have a couple of
comments...

Section 3, third from last para:  In the paragraph that starts 'The Incremental
field is advisory', appears to address the situation where the HTTP
intermediary is unfamiliar with the new header field.  Am I reading this right?
 If so, perhaps a more direct discussion of 'transition' might be useful (as
Chris Lonvick points out in their secdir review).  In addition, while
'advisory' is a perfectly normal English word, it isn't one we normally see in
Standards track specifications.  I'd be happy to help with the wording
(although I suspect that you all are well equipped to do this without help).

Section 4:  Perhaps the addition of a reminder that RFC 9110, Section 17.2 does
still apply might be in order.  Of course, that warning is already 'in play' as
it were, the question is whether it is worth a reminder.

Received on Saturday, 31 January 2026 12:15:29 UTC