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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 12 March 2012 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CE511E8085; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.253
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnTJwz3Li+GF; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8AF11E8083; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com []) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2CGFFnC099573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:15:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:15:25 -0500
Message-Id: <27FD8C7A-7636-4D60-A65E-C2B264857A0E@nostrum.com>
To: draft-reschke-http-status-308.all@tools.ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:15:17 -0000

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>gt;.

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.

Major issues:


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?)

-- 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.

-- section 3, 1st paragraph: "Clients with link-editing capabilities ought to..."

Should that be stated normatively?

-- 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?

-- 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?

Nits/editorial comments: