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

Hi Ben,

Do Julian's comments or the changes in version 06 address your concerns?

Peter

On 3/12/12 11:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf