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

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 05:44:57 -0700

Lars Eggert 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2. , paragraph 12, comment:
>    When adding a value to the Proxy-Status field, intermediaries SHOULD
>    preserve the existing members of the field, to allow debugging of the
>    entire chain of intermediaries handling the request.

I'm surprised this is not a MUST? Are there any valid reasons for not observing
order?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

"Table of Contents", paragraph 2, nit:
> e critical infrastructure of many Web sites. Typically, HTTP intermediaries
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^
Nowadays, it's more common to write this as one word.

Section 2.1.1. , paragraph 6, nit:
> ed HTTP Status Code. When generating a HTTP response containing "error", its
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour". (Also elsewhere.)

Section 2.1.2. , paragraph 1, nit:
>  protocol identifier is able to be expressed as an sf-token using ASCII encod
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Avoid the passive voice after "to be able to".

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:05:05 +1000

Hi Lars,

> On 24 Aug 2021, at 10:44 pm, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

As discussed previously, this is intentional; there are cases where it's desirable to remove it (e.g., when a CDN has several layers of intermediation, and doesn't want to expose internal details to clients). A subsequent edit highlighted this possibility.

Cheers,

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

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:49:55 +1000

Hi Lars,

> On 25 Aug 2021, at 6:04 pm, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2021-8-25, at 2:05, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> if such a CDN desires to appear as a single hop and edit the Proxy-Status field internally as a request if processed, it can certainly do so without the RFC needing to explicitly allow this?

That's one example why it's a SHOULD. Another is when a CDN is configured by one of its customers to remove the header field, so as not to expose the internal intermediary infrastructure of the customer (rather than a CDN).

Cheers,