W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:09:21 +0100
Message-ID: <528A8201.4010501@gmx.de>
To: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-11-18 22:02, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14
> Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty
> Review Date: November 18, 2013
> IETF LC End Date:
> IESG Telechat date: 12/19
>
> Summary:
> Please check idnits, there are several issues to resolve.  You can see the list from the data tracker version of the draft and just use the "Check nits" link.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations/?include_text=1
> Once the idnits are resolved satisfactorily, the document is ready for publication.
> ...

The issues reported are:

>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
>      in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

No, there aren't.

>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
>      have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
>      have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
>      the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
>      this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

No, it doesn't (why does idnits think so?)

>   Checking references for intended status: Informational
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2068 (Obsoleted by RFC 2616)

RFC 2068 currently is the only document that defines LINK/UNLINK. The 
only thing we can do here is to declare all references in the 
registrations to be informative, but I really really don't see why it 
would matter here.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 21:09:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC