Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets-02
review-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets-02-artart-lc-bray-2022-01-19-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2022-01-19 | |
| Requested | 2022-01-05 | |
| Authors | Ryan Hamilton | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-01-19 | |
| Completed reviews |
Artart Last Call review of -02
by Tim Bray
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Tirumaleswar Reddy.K (diff) Genart Last Call review of -01 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Bray |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/wev-Zrg8DoV-Uu0JWpORXHcpuOU | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2022-01-19 |
review-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets-02-artart-lc-bray-2022-01-19-00
Generally looks good to me, but I'm sufficiently shallow on QUICK-related stuff that I might miss something QUIC-incompatible. Nit: Section 1: The link to "Appendix A.3" is wrong, seems to just link back to this draft. Issue: Section 2, 2nd paragraph: It feels like there could be a MUST or SHOULD in here so Websockets implementers can be sure they're doing the right thing to get an orderly shutdown? Issue: Section 2, 4th paragraph: This makes perfect sense, but is it Websockets-specific? Does it actually belong in draft-ietf-quic-http?