Re: Roman Danyliw's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-http-33: (with COMMENT)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

Thanks for the review. I've created a GitHub issue to track each comment on
the QUIC WG repository, see the URL in line.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:28 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-quic-http-33: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-http/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The work on this document and its companions is greatly appreciated!
>
> Thank you to Hilarie Orman for the SECDIR review.
>
> ** Section 3.1.  “The host must be listed either as the CN field …”, why
> not a
> normative MUST just as there is in the next sentence around the required
> use of
> iPAddress?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4763


> ** Section 3.3  Per “Once a connection exists to a server endpoint, this
> connection MAY be reused for requests with multiple different URI authority
> components”, it might be worth repeating here that in cases of https,
> changes
> in the authority components still need to occur within the bounds of the
> certificate validation practices noted in Section 3.1 and in Section 4.3.4
> of
> draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics.
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4764

Cheers
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs