Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:37:29 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-07: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the updates in the -07; they look good.

Two remarks on the new content in the -07:

In Section 2.1.1 the prose accompanying the example that uses
a 429 response code mentions "the reverse proxy", but the
Proxy-Status list members in the example have been changed to
no longer mention "SomeReverseProxy" in favor of an example hostname
specific to a given deployment.

The template for the proxy error types registry (Section 2.4), as
well as the initial registry contents in Sections 2.3.x, use the
phrase "Only generated by intermediaries".  My apologies if I made
this comment already and it was discarded, but that phrasing is
easy to misread as saying that the *error* was only generated by
intermediaries, when the intent is that the (possibly partial)
response content was only generated by intermediaries.  So I'd consider
adding "response", for "Response only generated by intermediaries"
(or similar) to forestall such confusion.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:13:17 +1100

Hi Ben!

Thanks for the comments. Responses below.

> On 13 Oct 2021, at 6:37 am, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/0bb14623e07

> (or similar) to forestall such confusion.

Thanks, I was uncomfortable with that phrasing and I think you've pointed out why. It's somewhat unwieldy (and was before too), but at least now accurate. See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/8872f7477ad44

If no one sees any immediate issues with those changes, I'll submit a new revision shortly.

Cheers and thanks again Ben,

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

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 17:23:54 -0700

> Cheers and thanks again Ben,

Works for me.

Thanks!

-Ben