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

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Hi Karen,

Apologies for not getting back on this sooner! It slipped through my email.

The diff looks good in general. My responses to the specific questions are inline, below.

> On Jan 26, 2024, at 3:04 PM, Karen Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Tommy,
> 
> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication.  Please review the questions outlined in the email below and let us know if any updates are needed.
> 
> We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process.
> 
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/kc
> 
>> On Jan 17, 2024, at 1:34 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> -->    

How about:

Next-Hop Aliases Proxy-Status

Or

Next-Hop Aliases Proxy-Status Parameter

>> 
>> 
>> 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.

Yes, other than the instances mentioned below in (b) and (c) they look fine.

>> 
>> 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>.

Yes, I think it would be appropriate to make that instance of next-hop-aliases consistent (code font).
>> 
>> 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>)

This one should probably be in quotes, like the other names.

>>  getaddrinfo  (enclosed with <tt>)
>>  AI_CANONNAME (enclosed with <tt>)

These are fine.

>>  "proxy.example.net" vs. proxy.example.net
Both cases of proxy.example.net outside of DNS record examples should be in quotes.

>>  "backslash\name.example.com"
>>  "backslash\\name.example.com"
>>  "dot\.label.example.com"
>>  "dot%5C.label" 
>>  "host.example.com"
>>  "service1.example.com"
>>  "tracker.example.com"
>> -->

The rest of these look fine!

>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> -->

The dns-examples can just be left blank for type. The other types look fine.
>> 
>> 
>> 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. 
>> -->

The reference to 3.1 is correct. Specifically:

Although labels can contain any 8 bit values in octets that make up a
label, it is strongly recommended that labels follow the preferred
syntax described elsewhere in this memo, which is compatible with
existing host naming conventions.
>> 
>> 
>> 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"
>> -->
>> 

I would prefer to avoid splitting this across lines. However, the example domain doesn’t really matter — could we instead shorten the last DNS name to something like s1.example.com <http://s1.example.com/>, etc?

>> 
>> 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>.
>> -->

The updated reference looks good to me.
>> 
>> 
>> 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

This grouping isn’t a formal name. next-hop-aliases is a parameter for Proxy-Status, which is an HTTP concept.

Reviewing these, I’d like to keep these all as-is.

>> 
>> 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.

Yes, that update is fine.
>> 
>> ...
>> 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.

Yes, that update is fine.

>> 
>> 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.
>> -->

Yes, that looks good.
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> -->

Thanks, I believe we don’t need any changes here.

Best,
Tommy
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>