The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)
draft-reschke-http-status-308-07

[Ballot comment]

  The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 12-Mar-2012 includes several
  minor issues.  They are:

  -- General: I see some discussion about existing UA behavior, but
    nothing about what a UA should do with a 308 other than as an
    implication the fact that this is a "permanent version of 307".
    It's probably worth describing that explicitly. (Or is that what
    the "clients with link-editing capabilities" statement is
    intended to do? If so, does that cover everything?)

  -- Section 1, last paragraph: The fact that a 308 can't change the
    method is left as an implication of being based on 307. It would
    be good to state that explicitly and normatively here.

  -- Section 3, 1st paragraph: "Clients with link-editing capabilities
    ought to..."  Should that be stated normatively?

  -- Section 3, third paragraph: "The new permanent URI SHOULD be
    given..."  I'm curious why that is not a MUST. Is there a
    reasonable (i.e. interoperable)  way to send a 308 _without_ a
    URI in the location field? Is the meta refresh directive something
    that can be used _instead_ of the Location header field?

  -- Section 4: The example uses _both_ the location field and the
    HTML  refresh directive. Is this considered a recommended
    practice to the degree you might normatively recommend it in the
    text?

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

In section 3 you have "ought".
It might be nice to use a RFC 2119 word for this.

---

Section 3 also contains two instances of "SHOULD". It would be good to
explain (often a "MAY") why these are not "MUST". (I think the exsiting
"MAY" applies as a varience to the "ought".)

[Ballot comment]
The writeup doesn't mention why this isn't just part of the httpbis specifications, since it was apparently fine with the working group and received positive comments there.  Why did it have to be done as AD-sponsored, and why is the target Experimental?

Upon approval of this document, the following registration will be made
in the "HTTP Status Codes"
registry found at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes

Requested Value: 308 (to be assigned after approval)
Description: Permanent Redirect
Reference: Section 3 of this specification

We understand this to be the only IANA action.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent
  Redirect)'
  as an Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies the additional HyperText Transfer Protocol
  (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-status-308/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-status-308/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

The PROTO write-up follows.

###

Shepherd write-up for: draft-reschke-http-status-308
Intended status: Proposed Standard

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
        and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
        for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
     
        Cyrus Daboo  is shepherding this document. The
        document is ready for forwarding to the IESG.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
        the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
        have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?
     
        This document has been discussed and reviewed on the HTTP mailing
        list () mailing list. Informal last calls were
        done on that mailing list as well as the IETF Apps Discuss list
        (). As such there are no concerns with the
        depth or breadth of reviews.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
        security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
        internationalization or XML?
       
        No concerns.
       
  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
        she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
        concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
        the interested community has discussed those issues and has
        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
        those concerns here.
       
        No concerns.
       
  (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

        The latest version of the draft has received positive feedback
        from several members of the HTTP mailing list.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)
       
        No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
        enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
        formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
        type and URI type reviews?

        ID nits were checked and passed.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? Are there normative references to documents that are
        not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
        completion? Are there normative references that are downward
        references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
        references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
        for them [RFC3967].
       
        A normative reference section exists. There are references to two
        documents that are currently drafts and work products of the HTTPbis
        working group. It is expected these drafts will be completed soon.
   
  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
        the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
        reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
        IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
        registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
        registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
        Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
        describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
        Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
        Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
       
        IANA considerations exists. This depends on a new registry being
        created as part of the HTTPbis work.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
        BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
        automated checker?
       
        Yes.

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:
       
    Technical Summary
        This document specifies the additional HyperText Transfer Protocol
        (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect). This fills-in a missing
        piece of HTTP redirect behavior by allowing for a permanent redirect
        that is guaranteed to not have a POST method changed to a GET.
       
    Working Group Summary
        This document is not the product of a working group, however it has
        been discussed on the HTTP mailing list where ongoing HTTPbis work
        is carried out.
       
    Document Quality   
        This document has been discussed and reviewed on the HTTP mailing
        list () mailing list. Informal last calls were
        carried out on that mailing list as well as the IETF Apps Discuss
        list (). This specification simply registers
        a new HTTP status code that is a variant of existing well-defined
        codes, and as such is straightforward.

###