Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-06

From: Jim Fenton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 11:57:27 -0700

Reviewer: Jim Fenton
Review result: Almost Ready

Substantive comment:

The third paragraph from the end of Section 2 says:

   When adding a value to the Proxy-Status field, intermediaries SHOULD
   preserve the existing members of the field, to allow debugging of the
   entire chain of intermediaries handling the request.

Under what circumstances would an intermediary need to mess with existing
Proxy-Status entries? Please consider upgrading this requirement to a MUST, and
perhaps also require that the ordering of existing entries be preserved.

Minor comments:

The descriptions of errors in sections 2.3.13, 2.3.14, 2.3.28, 2.3.30, and
2.3.31 all contain a paragraph saying, "Note that additional information...(as
is the case for all errors)." It isn't clear whether this text belongs in the
"Notes" column of the registry entry being created since it is separate from
the bulleted list describing the entry. Please consider removing this text in
these sections and instead including it as introductory text describing the
error parameter.

The Notes for the entries either are empty or contain the text, "Responses with
this error type might not have been generated by the intermediary." I wonder if
this might more efficiently be represented by a Boolean flag in the registry
entries, but probably preserving the Notes field in the registry for future use.

The introduction uses both the phrase "towards the origin server" and the term
"upstream". It might be helpful to some readers to make it clear that they're
synonymous, e.g., "towards the origin server (upstream)"

Section 1.1 says that this specification uses ABNF, but I find only structured
fields. Consider removing the mention of ABNF and the informative reference to
RFC 5234.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:44:41 +1000

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the helpful review. I'm tracking this in:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1612

... and have updated that with responses and links to the resulting changes. Happy to follow up on any additional discussion here or there.

Cheers,

> On 22 Aug 2021, at 4:57 am, Jim Fenton via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Jim Fenton

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

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 16:44:42 +0000

Thanks Jim for the review! And thanks authors for addressing Jim's comments.

Francesca

On 23/08/2021, 04:45, "Mark Nottingham" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi Jim,

    Cheers,

    --
    Mark Nottingham   https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=68f9b553-37628c56-68f9f5c8-86d2114eab2f-bd4228b7ad10970a&q=1&e=90cbf362-622d-44c7-b8d5-19256b728381&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F