- 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