Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-05-21
Requested 2018-05-07
Authors Patrick McManus
Draft last updated 2018-07-02
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Victor Kuarsingh
Assignment Reviewer Victor Kuarsingh 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets-07-opsdir-lc-kuarsingh-2018-07-02
Reviewed rev. 07
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-07-02


Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh
Review result: Ready

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews  during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document Reviewed - Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2
Link to Document -

Status: Ready for publication


This document creates a mechanism to establish Websockets (RFC 6455) utilizing an HTTP/2 connection

The document would update RFC 6455 if approved to add similar resultant functionality to HTTP/2 based connections as one would get with HTTP1.1 per RFC7230 (Section 6.7) - upgrade header functionality.

I reviewed Version 07 of the document since it was published before I was able to conduct my review.

General Comments and Feedback:

The document appears ready for publication.  The major two areas for operational review were captured in section 7 (Intermediaries / proxies) and section 8 (security considerations).

The only potential additional consideration one may have wanted to add would be related to proxies which may not be able process the new/extended CONNECT functionality.  It’s possible additional failures modes may be possible for existing deployments.  

No editorial changes suggested


Victor Kuarsingh