IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental-03
review-ietf-httpbis-incremental-03-artart-lc-reschke-2025-12-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2025-12-16
Requested 2025-12-02
Authors Kazuho Oku , Tommy Pauly , Martin Thomson
I-D last updated 2026-05-20 (Latest revision 2026-03-02)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Julian Reschke (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Julian Reschke
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/1WCASNTf---DGPBSQ8FcF0rM9io
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-12-06
review-ietf-httpbis-incremental-03-artart-lc-reschke-2025-12-06-00
Ready with minor nits.

In 3., two documents about "extended CONNECT" are mentioned. Both are about
WebSockets. Would it make sense sayint it here, potentially sparing readers the
indirection?

4.3: it's (to me) not complely clear what is recommended. Set limits on bytes
or time? The subsequent sentence indicates that this would be a problem as well.

IANA: maybe link to the HTTP Proxy Error Types registry - that would make it
easier to check the requirements.