Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-13
review-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-13-genart-lc-schinazi-2021-08-12-00
| 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 | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qVJ9Vf6SAeh7nATa3apYtca8P8w | |
| Reviewed revision | 13 (document currently at 15) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2021-08-12 |
review-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-13-genart-lc-schinazi-2021-08-12-00
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 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