Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 15:34:38 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets-02: 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/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-h3-websockets/

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

A couple editorial nits in https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1904
and just one "real" comment.

Section 1

   HTTP/3.  This extension makes use of an HTTP/2 setting.  Appendix A.3
   of [HTTP3] describes the required updates for HTTP/2 settings to be
   used with HTTP/3.

The referenced appendix mostly (by line count) talks about how individual
HTTP/2 settings (or the semantics thereof) are mapped to HTTP/3; however,
it does not list or discuss SETTINGS_ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL.  That leads
me to surmise that the intent here is instead to refer to the statements
like "Settings ported from HTTP/2 might choose to redefine their value to
limit it to 30 bits for more efficient encoding, or to make use of the
62-bit space if more than 30 bits are required" and "Settings need to be
defined separately for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3."  If so, perhaps something
like "gives some guidance on what changes (if any) are appropriate when
porting settings from HTTP/2 to HTTP/3" would help direct the reader to
the intended part of A.3?