Hi Roman, Thanks for the review. I've created a GitHub issue to track each comment on the QUIC WG repository, see the URL in line.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:28 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > 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? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4763 > ** 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. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4764 Cheers Lucas On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs
