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

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:16:17 -0700

Martin Duke 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm disappointed that there isn't an end-to-end connection option to request
this field. It would be a useful mode for intermediaries to only include this
field on request for performance reasons (as IIUC this is mainly about
debugging).

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 11:53:31 +1000

Hi Martin,

> On 21 Aug 2021, at 4:16 am, Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

That doesn't follow current practice, and experience has shown that introducing negotiation mechanisms introduces complexity, which can harm interoperability and security. If one becomes necessary, we can always layer it in later.

Cheers,

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