Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13
review-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13-artart-lc-bormann-2022-06-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2022-06-10
Requested 2022-03-17
Authors Dave Thaler
I-D last updated 2026-04-02 (Latest revision 2023-03-27)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Stefan Santesson (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Carsten Bormann (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carsten Bormann
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/XCL1Bpk7GLkeoJ4NM2jzbhw2aJA
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-06-28
review-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13-artart-lc-bormann-2022-06-28-00
Thank you for a clear specification of the way TEEP is tunneled through an HTTP
Transport.

## Minor

The list of boilerplate header fields in 4 might briefly mention why there is
no point in providing a cache-control header (as is being suggested by RFC
9205).

5.1: What is an "API session"?  This reviewer can probably guess, but would
prefer not having to.

6.2: Why is this a SHOULD?  Are there any adverse consequences of not doing
that?  What would be the reason to deviate from the SHOULD?

## Nits

Obviously, by now RFC 9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics) and RFC 9205
(draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis) have been published.

Is there a difference between the end of 5.1 and the end of 5.2?
Please indicate if these are the same, or if there is a subtle difference.

7 Bullet 8:
pass -> passes