Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05
review-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05-genart-lc-fossati-2021-07-28-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 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 | |
| I-D last updated | 2021-07-28 | |
| Completed reviews |
Tsvart Last Call review of -05
by Magnus Westerlund
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Rich Salz (diff) Genart Last Call review of -05 by Thomas Fossati (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 | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cpl0NWuhMWZrSGe3Vz8SZZbVaBA | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2021-07-28 |
review-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05-genart-lc-fossati-2021-07-28-00
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-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 Summary: 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 "https://iana.org/assignments/http-proxy-statuses (plural) or https://iana.org/assignments/http-proxy-status (singular)? Or are these two different things -- in which case I am not sure what the difference would be?