David, thank you for your review. I have entered a (procedural) Discuss ballot for this document (due to a still-missing IANA review). Lars > On 2021-8-12, at 21:36, David Schinazi via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: David Schinazi > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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-bcp56bis-13 > Reviewer: David Schinazi > Review Date: 2021-08-12 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-07-23 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Well-written and easy to read document. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > * s4.5 seems to prohibit defining new non-generic HTTP methods. How do we > reconcile that with the work happening in MASQUE? I know that CONNECT is its > own special-case, but should we have a carveout here? (Though MASQUE might end > up using extended CONNECT which side steps the issue). Or is it the case that > MASQUE is modifying HTTP itself instead of building an application over HTTP? > > Nits/editorial comments: > * s3.2 uses the term "link" without explaining what it is. Perhaps a reference > to RFC 8288 if that's what is meant here? * s4.11 mentions HTTP/3 without > referencing its specification > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
