Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9532 <draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-07> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Author,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] Should the short title that spans the header of the PDF be
updated to more closely match the document's title and the description 
in the Abstract/Introduction?

Original:
   DNS Aliases Proxy-Status

Perhaps:
   Proxy-Status for Next-Hop Aliases
-->    


2) <!-- [rfced] Use of <tt> and quote marks

a) In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> is
output in fixed-width font. In the txt output, there are no
changes to the font, and the quotation marks have been removed.

Please review carefully and let us know if the output is acceptable or 
if any updates are needed.

b) Should one instance of "next-hop-aliases" (Section 5) 
be enclosed with <tt> (instead of quote marks) for consistency 
with the other instances in the text?

Current:
   This document registers the "next-hop-aliases" parameter 
   in the "HTTP Proxy-Status Parameters" registry
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-proxy-status>.

c) Please review if any of the example or DNS names below should 
be updated with quote marks or <tt> for consistency.

   comma,name.example.com (enclosed with <tt>)
   getaddrinfo  (enclosed with <tt>)
   AI_CANONNAME (enclosed with <tt>)
   "proxy.example.net" vs. proxy.example.net
   "backslash\name.example.com"
   "backslash\\name.example.com"
   "dot\.label.example.com"
   "dot%5C.label" 
   "host.example.com"
   "service1.example.com"
   "tracker.example.com"
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" for each sourcecode
element. Note that "dns-example" is not an applicable type;
please let us know how to update both instances that occur in
Section 2.

The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt. If the current
list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions
for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type"
attribute not set.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] Please confirm if RFC 1035, Section 3.1 ("Name space
definitions") is the correct reference for this text or if it
should perhaps be RFC 1035, Section 5.1 ("Format"), where
characters are mentioned.

Original:
   DNS names commonly just contain alphanumeric characters and hyphens
   ("-"), although they are allowed to contain any character ([RFC1035],
   Section 3.1), including a comma. 

Perhaps:
   DNS names commonly just contain alphanumeric characters and hyphens
   ("-"), although they are allowed to contain any character ([RFC1035],
   Section 5.1), including a comma. 
-->


5) <!--[rfced] In Section 2.1, the third sourcecode example contains
characters that are over the 72-character limit, so we moved
"service1.example.com" to the next line. Please let us know if
this formatting is agreeable or if further updates are needed.

Original:
   Proxy-Status: proxy.example.net; next-hop="2001:db8::1";
       next-hop-aliases="backslash%5C%5Cname.example.com,service1.example.com"

Current:
   Proxy-Status: proxy.example.net; next-hop="2001:db8::1";
       next-hop-aliases="backslash%5C%5Cname.example.com,
       service1.example.com"
-->


6) <!--[rfced] A current version of this reference exists. Should the
reference entry be updated to reflect the 2017 version as shown
below, or do you prefer the 2013 version?

Original:
[POSIX]    IEEE, "Standard for Information Technology Portable Operating
           System Interface (POSIX(R)) Base Specifications, Issue 7", DOI
           10.1109/ieeestd.2013.6506091, April 2013,
           <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=6506089>.

Perhaps:
[POSIX]    IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information Technology-Portable
           Operating System Interface (POSIX(TM)) Base 
           Specifications, Issue 7", 1003.1-2017,
           DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, January 2018,
           <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
           opac?punumber=6506089>.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used 
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how
they may be made consistent.  

   next-hop-aliases HTTP Proxy-Status Parameter vs. 
   next-hop-aliases Proxy-Status parameter vs.
   next-hop-aliases parameter

b) For consistency, should "parameter" be added after
"next-hop-aliases" in the sentences below?

Original:
   The list of DNS names in next-hop-aliases uses a comma (",") as
   a separator between names. 

Perhaps:
   The list of DNS names in the next-hop-aliases parameter uses a 
   comma (",") as a separator between names. 

...
Original:
   The proxy MAY send the empty string ("") as the value of 
   next-hop-aliases to indicate that no CNAME records were 
   encountered when resolving the next hop's name.

Perhaps:
   The proxy MAY send the empty string ("") as the value of the 
   next-hop-aliases parameter to indicate that no CNAME records
   were encountered when resolving the next hop's name.

c) FYI: Since "Unreserved Characters" is lowercase in RFC 3986, 
we made the following instance lowercase for consistency;
if you prefer otherwise, please let us know.

Original:
   To prevent commas or other special
   characters in names leading to incorrect parsing, any characters that
   appear in names in this list that do not belong to the set of URI
   Unreserved Characters ([RFC3986], Section 2.3) MUST be percent-
   encoded as defined in [RFC3986], Section 2.1.

Current:
   To prevent commas or other special
   characters in names leading to incorrect parsing, any characters that
   appear in names in this list that do not belong to the set of URI
   unreserved characters ([RFC3986], Section 2.3) MUST be percent-
   encoded as defined in [RFC3986], Section 2.1.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/kc


On Jan 17, 2024, at 1:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/01/17

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9532.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9532.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9532.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9532.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9532-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9532-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9532-xmldiff1.html

Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9532

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9532 (draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-07)

Title            : HTTP Proxy-Status Parameter for Next-Hop Aliases
Author(s)        : T. Pauly
WG Chair(s)      : Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini