Hi Éric, Thanks for the review. I've created a GitHub issue to track each comment on the QUIC WG respository, see the URL in line.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 1:54 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-quic-http-33: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-http/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated), and two nits. > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > == COMMENTS == > > For many comments, please bear with my lack of expertise in HTTP in > general. > > -- Section 1.1 -- > This section mixes "HTTP/1.1" and "HTTP/1.x" and it is unclear to me what > the > link is between the first 2 sentences. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4751 > -- Section 3.1 -- > In "clients SHOULD attempt to use TCP-based versions of HTTP in this case." > Should the version(s) of HTTP be specified or is it done on purpose to > allow a > HTTP/4 over TCP (if ever) ? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4752 > -- Section 4.2 -- > Should this section mention the work in MASQUE? While I am not really > familiar > with MASQUE, isn't it using the CONNECT H/2 method (e.g., > draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp albeit for UDP) ? > > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4753 -- Section 4.4 -- > Should the client behavior be specified when server does not respect "A > server > SHOULD use Push IDs sequentially, beginning from zero. " ? > > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4754 -- Section 5.3 -- > Should the CONNECT method behavior be specified when the client does an > immediate closure? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4755 > -- Section 5.4 -- > Should the server behavior be specified when the QUIC transport aborts ? > It is > mostly obvious that all states will be cleared but what about the CONNECT > method ? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4756 > -- Section 11.2.1 and others -- > I must admit that the purpose of the special "0x1f * N + 0x21" values are > unknown to me (or is it only for application padding as described in the > security section?) but shouldn't they be reserved in the IANA registry? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4757 > == NITS == > > -- Section 1 -- > " These semantics have most commonly been used with > HTTP/1.1, over a variety of transport and session layers, and with > HTTP/2 over TLS. " > > The asymmetric use of comas is puzzling, should there be a coma after > "HTTP/2" ? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4758 > -- Section 11.2 -- > Should "and a contact of the HTTP working group ([email protected])." > rather > be "and a contact of the W3C HTTP working group ([email protected])." ? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4759 Cheers Lucas On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs
