Hi Jim, Thanks for the helpful review. I'm tracking this in: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1612 ... and have updated that with responses and links to the resulting changes. Happy to follow up on any additional discussion here or there. Cheers, > On 22 Aug 2021, at 4:57 am, Jim Fenton via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Jim Fenton > Review result: Almost Ready > > Substantive comment: > > The third paragraph from the end of Section 2 says: > > When adding a value to the Proxy-Status field, intermediaries SHOULD > preserve the existing members of the field, to allow debugging of the > entire chain of intermediaries handling the request. > > Under what circumstances would an intermediary need to mess with existing > Proxy-Status entries? Please consider upgrading this requirement to a MUST, and > perhaps also require that the ordering of existing entries be preserved. > > Minor comments: > > The descriptions of errors in sections 2.3.13, 2.3.14, 2.3.28, 2.3.30, and > 2.3.31 all contain a paragraph saying, "Note that additional information...(as > is the case for all errors)." It isn't clear whether this text belongs in the > "Notes" column of the registry entry being created since it is separate from > the bulleted list describing the entry. Please consider removing this text in > these sections and instead including it as introductory text describing the > error parameter. > > The Notes for the entries either are empty or contain the text, "Responses with > this error type might not have been generated by the intermediary." I wonder if > this might more efficiently be represented by a Boolean flag in the registry > entries, but probably preserving the Notes field in the registry for future use. > > The introduction uses both the phrase "towards the origin server" and the term > "upstream". It might be helpful to some readers to make it clear that they're > synonymous, e.g., "towards the origin server (upstream)" > > Section 1.1 says that this specification uses ABNF, but I find only structured > fields. Consider removing the mention of ABNF and the informative reference to > RFC 5234. > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
