Telechat Review of draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08
review-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08-httpdir-telechat-nottingham-2023-04-04-00

# HTTPDIR comments for draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08

I am an assigned HTTP directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the ART Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the HTTP Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.

Overall, I find the document well written and understandable. I only have
questions on clarifications and think the draft is ready with nits for
publication.

## Comment

### Intermediaries

In 4.1. IP Proxy Handling, the first bullet says:

> if the recipient is configured to use another HTTP proxy, it will act as an
intermediary by forwarding the request to another HTTP server.

The nature of this intermediary isn't very clear, but I believe that for it to
function it needs support for the capsule protocol *and* this protocol; if so,
that should be stated explicitly.

Also, sections 4.3 and 4.5 specify how IP Proxies are to respond to a
tunnelling request, but do not specify how the intermediary role created in 4.1
is to respond to such a request; nor is it specified elsewhere, as far as I can
tell. This can be addressed by broadening the first sentences in 4.3 and 4.5 to
apply to both IP proxies and intermediaries that support this protocol.

## Nits

In the abstract, the word 'proxy' is used without qualification. It would be
better to use the term 'IP proxy'.

In 4.3. HTTP/1.1 Response, 'abort the connection' is not typical usage (e.g.,
in RFC9112); suggest 'close the connection'.