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 | Last Call Review | |
Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
Deadline | 2022-06-10 | |
Requested | 2022-03-17 | |
Authors | Dave Thaler | |
I-D last updated | 2022-06-28 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -14
by Stefan Santesson
(diff)
Artart Last Call review of -13 by Carsten Bormann (diff) Genart Last Call review of -13 by Russ Housley (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Carsten Bormann |
State | Completed | |
Request | 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