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

Fwd: [httpbis] #525: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:31:17 +0100
Message-ID: <529E3F95.5050807@greenbytes.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [httpbis] #525: Gen-ART Last Call review 
Resent-To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:53:37 -0000
From: httpbis <trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional@tools.ietf.org, julian.reschke@gmx.de

#525: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25
  Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-
   julian.reschke@gmx.de  |  httpbis-p4-conditional@tools.ietf.org
      Type:  design       |     Status:  new
  Priority:  normal       |  Milestone:  unassigned
Component:               |   Severity:  In IETF LC
   p4-conditional         |     Origin:  http://www.ietf.org/mail-
  Keywords:               |  archive/web/gen-art/current/msg09376.html
  Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

  Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

  Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

  IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

  IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19


  This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have
  some comments.

  Major issues:


  Minor issues:


  Nits/editorial comments:

  Part 4 of:

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

  *draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)

  -[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2
  every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

  -[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"

  -General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered
  merging with part 6?

  - [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it
  be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related
  to HTTP?

  Best Regards,


Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/525>
httpbis <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 20:31:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC