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

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 23:35:35 -0700

Murray Kucherawy 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice work, as usual for this WG.

Question 7 (an important one) in the shepherd writeup has not been properly
answered.

I had the same thought as Warren about seeing an example of multiple proxies
being indicated, which in turn might report details.  I think I saw that
there's a proposal for one to be included, so I'll go check that out.

Section 2:

* "... or when the request contains a header that activates a debugging mode."
-- should that be "header field"?

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 17:01:33 +1000

Hi Murray,

> On 26 Aug 2021, at 4:35 pm, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yes, that's in Ben's <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1618>.

Cheers,

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