Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-08-11
Requested 2021-07-21
Authors Mark Nottingham, Piotr Sikora
Draft last updated 2021-07-28
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Rich Salz (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -06 by Jim Fenton (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -06 by Benno Overeinder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Thomas Fossati 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05-genart-lc-fossati-2021-07-28
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2021-07-28


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-proxy-status-05
Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review Date: 2021-07-28
IETF LC End Date: 2021-08-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


The document describes a new header/trailer field that HTTP intermediaries can use to insert further details related to their handling of responses inline, for example to assist debugging of complex HTTP delivery topologies.  The described mechanism addresses the problem in a simple, elegant and extensible way.  The document is well written and the instructions to IANA are clear and actionable.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments: 
Is it " (plural) or (singular)?  Or are these two different things -- in which case I am not sure what the difference would be?