Document: draft-ietf-masque-connect-ethernet Title: Proxying Ethernet Frames in HTTP Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-masque-connect-ethernet-10 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2026-07-14 IETF LC End Date: 2026-07-15 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is in good shape but has a number of editorial nits and a trivial missing IANA update. Some pointers to the relevant sections of RFCs related to the TEMPLATE scheme usage would be helpful. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: s1, para 1: s/can't carry/cannot carry/ s1, para 3: states 'This protocol supports all existing versions of HTTP by using HTTP Datagrams [HTTP-DGRAM]. This statement needs to be qualified to identify what the latest existing version of HTTP at the time of publication of this document. s3, para 1, last sentence: It would be good to explicitly mention what .well-known location is being registered (.well-known/masque/ethernet) and provide a pointer to s11.2 which specifies the process of registration. Additionally this section should request the update of the well-known URIs IANA registry for masque to reference this document. s3, para 4: s/which segment to connect to/the segment to which to connect/ s3, para 8 (1st bullet): s/a level 3 template or lower/a template of type lwvel 3 or lower. See Section 1.2 of [TEMPLATE]./ s3, para 9 (2nd bullet): Add a reference to RFC 2396 that defines e 'absolute' term. s4, Figures 1 - 4: Capsule-Protocol field definition. A note that '?1' is a Structured Field Boolean True value as per RFC 8941 might help. s5: The last paragraph refers to the possibility of an endpoint receiving a context ID that has not been regeistered but does not explain the consequences of this or whether that is something that would be specified as part of the registration process. Thwre is discussion in s6 that may imply this. s6, para 4 (one after fields definitions), last sentence: s/include include/include/ s8.1: Does STREAM(44) need some explanation? Also is Quarter Stream ID = 11 just a reandom value or meaningful? s9.2, para 2:s/to access to/for access to/ s11.2: As noted above as related to s3, para 1, IANA should be requested to update the well-known URIs IANA registry for masque to additionally reference this document. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
