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

[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-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:

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?)

-- 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:

None