Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-http-33: Yes
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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The work on this document and its companions is greatly appreciated! Thank you to Hilarie Orman for the SECDIR review. ** Section 3.1. “The host must be listed either as the CN field …”, why not a normative MUST just as there is in the next sentence around the required use of iPAddress? ** Section 3.3 Per “Once a connection exists to a server endpoint, this connection MAY be reused for requests with multiple different URI authority components”, it might be worth repeating here that in cases of https, changes in the authority components still need to occur within the bounds of the certificate validation practices noted in Section 3.1 and in Section 4.3.4 of draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics.
