- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:31:17 +0100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
(FYI) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [httpbis] #525: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25 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 Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments. Major issues: none Minor issues: none 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, Meral -- 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