- From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:37:11 -0600
- To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, julian.reschke@gmx.de
------------------------------------------------------------------- I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft^H^H^H^H^Hstatus-change. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: status-change-http-status-code-308-ps-01 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 11 Dec 2014 IETF LC End Date: 29 Dec 2014 IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled for a telechat Summary: While 308 should move to Proposed Standard, this status-change document has serious issues, and should be reconsidered. Major issues: There is a conflict between this status-change document's statement that "the experiment is, therefore, over, and was a success" and the instructions to republish RFC7238 without change except to the boilerplate. The status-change document argues that the successful implementation of 308 in the vast majority of deployed browsers is sufficient to end the experiment. If so, the guidance in a republished RFC7238 section 4 would be unclear (and inappropriate for general deployment on the Internet). Isn't the restriction in the second paragraph the essence of the experiment? Specifically: "Therefore, initial use of status code 308 will be restricted to cases where the server has sufficient confidence in the client's understanding the new code or when a fallback to the semantics of status code 300 is not problematic." The intent of this status change is to move us past this "initial use" and loosen this restriction on application deployment is it not? While I support moving 308 to Proposed Standard, I don't think this is the right way to do it, and recommend a draft that updates section 4 instead. (It might be tempting to address this (if people agree with it) by adding an RFC Editor note to the status-change rather than using a draft. Please don't.) RjS
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 15:37:52 UTC