[Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13

Carsten Bormann via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 28 June 2022 19:34 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Carsten Bormann via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, teep@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165644486380.26179.14768343646969104650@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:34:23 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/4ejWCtdXNjVfQFetiZVyH6TyhbA>
Subject: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13

Reviewer: Carsten Bormann
Review result: Ready with Nits

Thank you for a clear specification of the way TEEP is tunneled through an HTTP
Transport.

## Minor

The list of boilerplate header fields in 4 might briefly mention why there is
no point in providing a cache-control header (as is being suggested by RFC
9205).

5.1: What is an "API session"?  This reviewer can probably guess, but would
prefer not having to.

6.2: Why is this a SHOULD?  Are there any adverse consequences of not doing
that?  What would be the reason to deviate from the SHOULD?

## Nits

Obviously, by now RFC 9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics) and RFC 9205
(draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis) have been published.

Is there a difference between the end of 5.1 and the end of 5.2?
Please indicate if these are the same, or if there is a subtle difference.

7 Bullet 8:
pass -> passes

[Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf… Carsten Bormann via Datatracker