Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-03-12 17:15, 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-reschke-http-status-308-05
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell	
> Review Date: 2012-03-12
> IETF LC End Date: 2012-03-16
> IESG Telechat date: 2012-03-15
>
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I have a few minor comments that might be worth considering whether they would improve the document prior to publication.
>
> Note: Since this draft is on a Telechat that precedes the end of the IETF Last Call, this review serves as both the LC and Telechat review.

Thanks.

> Major issues:
>
> None:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> -- General: I see some discussion about existing UA behavior, but nothing about what a UA should do with a 308 other than as an implication the fact that this is a "permanent version of 307". It's probably worth describing that explicitly. (Or is that what the "clients with link-editing capabilities" statement is intended to do?If so, does that cover everything?)

The draft uses *exactly* the same words as the base spec (HTTPbis), 
except that it combines aspects of 302 (permanence) with those of 307. I 
thought that's clear enough.

> -- section 1, last paragraph:
>
> The fact that a 308 can't change the method is left as an implication of being based on 307. It would be good to state that explicitly and normatively here.

We don't state it in HTTPbis either. 301, 302, and 303 are exceptions. 
See the new introduction in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18.html#rfc.section.7.3>.

> -- section 3, 1st paragraph: "Clients with link-editing capabilities ought to..."
>
> Should that be stated normatively?

No. Again, this is consistent with the text in HTTPbis for status code 302.

> -- section 3, third paragraph: "The new permanent URI SHOULD be given..."
>
> I'm curious why that is not a MUST. Is there a reasonable (i.e. interoperable)  way to send a 308 _without_ a URI in the location field? Is the meta refresh directive something that can be used _instead_ of the Location header field?

Again, consistency with RFC 2616 and HTTPbis.

> -- section 4:
>
> The example uses _both_ the location field and the HTML<meta>  refresh directive. Is this considered a recommended practice to the degree you might normatively recommend it in the text?

No, it's a hack that makes deployment easier until all UAs do the right 
thing; we don't want to make that permanent.

> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> None

Note that I have an updated version waiting to be submitted in two weeks 
(or earlier, if the AD allows me to). It updates references, and adds an 
informative ref to the HTML spec, as suggested during LC. See 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-status-308-latest.html>.

Best regards, Julian