Subject: Roman Danyliw's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-http-33: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:28:37 -0800

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.

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 23:33:59 +0000

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.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-http/

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4763

> draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics.

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4764

Cheers
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs