Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-11

[Ken Murchison <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for the review.  Comments inline.


On 12/21/2016 02:31 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-11
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 21 Dec 2016
> IETF LC End Date: 16 January 2017
> IESG Telechat date: Unknown
>
>
> Summary: Ready with issues
>
> This is a well written document with some minor editorial issues that
> need
> to be looked at before it is sent to the RFC Editor.
>
>
> Issues:
>
> >From ID-nits:
>
>    -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7240,
> but the
>       abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

Corrected in my working copy.


> =======
>
> SB> The following suggests an open issue, which needs to be
> SB> closed, or if closed already, the issue warning needs to be
> removed.
>
> Open Issues
>
>     o  Should we add any text regarding caching responses in Section
> 3?

Removed in my working copy.


> ========
>
>
>
> 3.1.  Successful State-Changing Requests
>
>
>     representating the current state resource in the resulting 201
> SB> representating - do you mean representing?
>
> ==========
>
> 3.2.  Unsuccessful Conditional State-Changing Requests
>
>     Frequently, clients using a state-changing method such as those
>     listed above will make them conditional by including either an If-
>     Match or If-None-Match [RFC7232] header field in the request.
> This
>     is done to prevent the client from accidentially overwriting a
> SB> s/accidentially/accidentally./

Fixed both typos in my working copy.


> =========
>
>
> 9.3.  URIs
>
> SB> I think that this section needs a "remove on publishing
> instruction"
> SB> since I think you have given instructions to remove all the
> SB> text that calls its entries.
>
> <end>

I don't know if the editor would do this automatically when removing the 
Implementation Status section, but I will add an explicit instruction to 
do so in my working copy.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University