Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-07-23
Requested 2021-07-09
Authors Mark Nottingham
I-D last updated 2021-08-12
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -12 by David L. Black (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by David Schinazi (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David Schinazi
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2021-08-12
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For
more information, please see the FAQ at

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-13
Reviewer: David Schinazi
Review Date: 2021-08-12
IETF LC End Date: 2021-07-23
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Well-written and easy to read document.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
* s4.5 seems to prohibit defining new non-generic HTTP methods. How do we
reconcile that with the work happening in MASQUE? I know that CONNECT is its
own special-case, but should we have a carveout here? (Though MASQUE might end
up using extended CONNECT which side steps the issue). Or is it the case that
MASQUE is modifying HTTP itself instead of building an application over HTTP?

Nits/editorial comments:
* s3.2 uses the term "link" without explaining what it is. Perhaps a reference
to RFC 8288 if that's what is meant here? * s4.11 mentions HTTP/3 without
referencing its specification