Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-quic-http-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

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

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:32 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-quic-http-33: Discuss
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks, Mike, for the excellent editing work on a very clear and well
> written
> document.
>
> In Section 4.1.1 I’m confused by the combination of the following two
> paragraphs, and would like to discuss what I’m missing:
>
>    Like HTTP/2, HTTP/3 does not use the Connection header field to
>    indicate connection-specific fields; in this protocol, connection-
>    specific metadata is conveyed by other means.  An endpoint MUST NOT
>    generate an HTTP/3 field section containing connection-specific
>    fields; any message containing connection-specific fields MUST be
>    treated as malformed (Section 4.1.3).
>
> ...
>
>    This means that an intermediary transforming an HTTP/1.x message to
>    HTTP/3 will need to remove any fields nominated by the Connection
>    field, along with the Connection field itself.  Such intermediaries
>    SHOULD also remove other connection-specific fields, such as Keep-
>    Alive, Proxy-Connection, Transfer-Encoding, and Upgrade, even if they
>    are not nominated by the Connection field.
>
> Given the MUST in the first, how can the second only be SHOULD?  Wouldn’t
> such
> an intermediary, acting as the HTTP/3 client, be producing a malformed
> message
> if it did not “remove other connection-specific fields”?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4771


>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are three instances of “URL” in the draft.  Make them “URI”, please.
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4772

Cheers
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs