IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 19 December 2013 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD101ADFDC for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:03:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c5wN4jR52Rzp for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D701ADFD2 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7012CC6B; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:02:55 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eceSCBFOnU85; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:02:54 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E462CC48; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:02:54 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A32C879A2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:02:53 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <14E1EFE9-60D4-46BB-A292-94C2932D6111@piuha.net>
References: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A32C879A2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
To: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:03:01 -0000

Meral,

Thank you for your review (once again!) Was there ever a response to the comments?

Having reviewed the comments, I agree with the examples comment, but I don't think there's anything in the comments that would cause me to raise a Discuss. Editorial issues are largely up to the editors, and hopefully this feedback will be considered by them. But in general I do like to hear from someone that the comments have been considered.

Jari

On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com> 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 resolve any Last Call comments you may receive.
>  
>  
> Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02
> IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)
> IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19
>  
>  
>  
> Summary:
> This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.
>  
>  
> Major issues:
> none
>  
>  
> Minor issues:
> none
>  
>  
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Part 4 of:
> draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)
> draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)
> *draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)
> draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)
> draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)
> draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)
> draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)
> draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)
>  
> -[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.
>  
> -[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"
>  
> -General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?
>  
> - [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?
>  
> Best Regards,
> Meral
>  
> ---
> Meral Shirazipour
> Ericsson Research
> www.ericsson.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email