[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-bryan-metalinkhttp-22

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-bryan-metalinkhttp-22
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-03-15
IESG Telechat date: 2011-03-17

Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a couple of remaining minor comments that may be worth considering, but probably should not block the draft's progress

Note: This is a followup from my Telechat review of version 21 (see below), which mostly applies to version 22 except for on editorial fix, which I have ellided.

On Mar 1, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-bryan-metalinkhttp-21
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date:  2011-03-01
> IETF LC End Date:
> IESG Telechat date: 2011-03-03
> 
> Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a couple of remaining comments that may be worth considering, but probably should not block the draft's progress.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> -- I note that the draft still suggests that servers SHOULD share an eTag generation policy, but does not offer a baseline policy that servers either SHOULD or MUST implement. I still have a mild concern that implementations might have non-intersecting sets of policy options. On the other hand, I realize that coming up with (i.e. agreeing to) a baseline policy is not a trivial effort in itself, so I don't think this should block publication. I mention it merely for the sake of completeness.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> -- section 2, last paragraph "Metalink clients use the mirrors provided by a Metalink server in Link header fields [ RFC5988 ] but it is restricted to the initial Metalink server they contacted. "
> 
> s /"... it is restricted..." / "... this is restricted ..."
> 

[...]