Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-14: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-14: 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-bcp56bis/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document, which is also easy and
interesting to read.

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

Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for his shepherd's write-up notably about the WG
consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

-- Section 2 --
I am puzzled by the wording " The requirements in this document" in this BCP...
Should it rather be "The applicability of this document..." ?

The following bullet list is unclear whether it is a "OR" or a "AND".

-- Section 3.2 --
s/Another common practice/Another common mistake/ ?

Some examples would be welcome as well.

-- Section 4.4.2 --
Isn't the reference to RFC 7258 redundant in ""https" is RECOMMENDED to provide
authentication, integrity and confidentiality, as well as mitigate pervasive
monitoring attacks [RFC7258]." ?

-- Section 4.5 --
In "they are required to be registered" should normative "REQUIRED" be used ?

Also, possibly naively, surprised by the absence of the "POST" method in the
list of detailed methods.