Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:03:42 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about 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 work put into this document. This header could indeed be very
useful for debugging !

Please find below  some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated).

Please also address Benno Overeinder's INTDR review at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-06-intdir-telechat-overeinder-2021-08-24/

Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for his shepherd's write-up notably about the WG
consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Is there any reason why a 'Proxy-Status-Request' (or similar) is not specified ?

-- Section 2 --
About "Origin servers MUST NOT generate the Proxy-Status field.", while I
understand the reasoning of it, I still wonder how a 'smart gateway' (not a
plain HTTP proxy but more like a content changer, such as mobile optimization
by reducing IMG size, or language translation, or ...) should handle this ? As
it is new content, the 'smart gateway' is the origin but getting info from the
real origin could also be useful. Or is it simply over-complex ?

-- Section 2.1.2 --
Some explanations about the example would be welcome.

-- Section 2.3 --
Should there be an error type for 'too many intermediaries' ?

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:16:49 +1000

Hi Éric,

Thanks for the feedback. Responses below.

> On 25 Aug 2021, at 9:03 pm, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

It would complicate the protocol significantly, because it would have implications for e.g., caching. 

> real origin could also be useful. Or is it simply over-complex ?

Those would be either gateways or proxies in HTTP terminology, depending on how they're configured -- both classes of intermediaries. 

> Some explanations about the example would be welcome.

See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/19022135

> Should there be an error type for 'too many intermediaries' ?

No. There hasn't been any practical need for one.

Cheers,

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