Hi Barry, Thanks for the review. I've created GitHub issue(s) to track each comment on the QUIC WG repository, see the URL(s) in line.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:32 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-quic-http-33: Discuss > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks, Mike, for the excellent editing work on a very clear and well > written > document. > > In Section 4.1.1 I’m confused by the combination of the following two > paragraphs, and would like to discuss what I’m missing: > > Like HTTP/2, HTTP/3 does not use the Connection header field to > indicate connection-specific fields; in this protocol, connection- > specific metadata is conveyed by other means. An endpoint MUST NOT > generate an HTTP/3 field section containing connection-specific > fields; any message containing connection-specific fields MUST be > treated as malformed (Section 4.1.3). > > ... > > This means that an intermediary transforming an HTTP/1.x message to > HTTP/3 will need to remove any fields nominated by the Connection > field, along with the Connection field itself. Such intermediaries > SHOULD also remove other connection-specific fields, such as Keep- > Alive, Proxy-Connection, Transfer-Encoding, and Upgrade, even if they > are not nominated by the Connection field. > > Given the MUST in the first, how can the second only be SHOULD? Wouldn’t > such > an intermediary, acting as the HTTP/3 client, be producing a malformed > message > if it did not “remove other connection-specific fields”? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4771 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > There are three instances of “URL” in the draft. Make them “URI”, please. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4772 Cheers Lucas On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs
