Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05: Yes

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is well written, concise, and
useful. I love when an I-D uses IPv6 examples ;-)

Please find below osome non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus, ***but it lacks*** the justification of the
intended status.

Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05-intdir-telechat-haberman-2023-10-23/
(and I have read the follow-up discussion)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric
# COMMENTS

## Use of 'name'

The text often use the word 'name', while draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis (and of
course RFC 8499) does not use the word 'name' without qualification. I strongly
suggest to stick to the 'approved' DNS terminology.

Adding draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis or RFC 8499 as informative reference would
be a plus.

## Multiple hops example

Another example with a proxy chain (i.e., multiple names in Proxy-Status:)
would be benefitial.

## Section 2

Why is this not a MUST in `The names SHOULD appear in the order in which they
were received in DNS` ? Is the information still useful if not in the order ?
When can the SHOULD not be enforced ?

`The proxy MAY send the empty string ("")`, I usually do not like 'negative
signalling', i.e., giving semantics to an absence of signal. There could be too
many false positives.

## Section 2.1

RFC 1035 section 3.1 is not really specifying the set of characters in a DNS
label. And, it is also clear in this RFC that neither comma nor dot are valid
in a label per BNF, please update the reference.

## Normative references

Really unsure whether RFC 9298 is normative.