Re: [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-06

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Benno,

Thanks for the review.

> On 25 Aug 2021, at 7:04 am, Benno Overeinder via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Section Abstract could provide a little more explanation, such as one
> or two examples of how to use the error reporting (as explained in the
> Introduction).

I don't think adding examples to the abstract is helpful.

> At the beginning of Section 2, should it be stated that Proxy-Status
> HTTP Fields are only added to responses towards the user agent?  So
> explicitly state that an intermediary only adds Proxy-Status HTTP
> Field towards the user agent and not towards the origin server?  (It
> is implied by the use of the word "response" of course and other text
> in this section.)

Proxy-Status is explicitly defined as a response field; this is how we denote that in HTTP.

> In Section 2.1, the following paragraph is a bit confusing to me:
> 
>   Unless a Proxy Error Type specifies otherwise, the presences of error
>   often, but not always, indicates that response was generated by the
>   proxy, not the origin server or any other upstream server.  For
>   example, a proxy might attempt to correct an error, or part of a
>   response might be forwarded before the error is encountered.
> 
> I read the sentence "For example, a proxy might ..." as the situation
> where the next intermediary will generate the error message.  Is that
> correct?

Yes, that's not terribly clear. See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/315bcc7f


Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux