Prefer Header for HTTP
draft-snell-http-prefer-18
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -15)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-23 for -15)
Unknown
Given that the document points to the similarity between Prefer and Expect, consider being explicit about not using tokens defined for Prefer in Expect header fields and vice-versa. You might also provide guidance about whether to use the same token in both if you are defining a behavior that would make sense to use in both places. Did you consider whether a client would ever need to say "I prefer thing X most, Y if you won't do that, and Z if you wont't do that"? Does anything here prevent adding something later that would capture that semantic? (I don't think so, parameters could be added to group preferences and give them weights for instance). Why isn't the SHOULD in "The Prefer header field is end-to-end and SHOULD be forwarded unless" not a MUST? Do you want to say anything about the order of parameters on a given header field value being significant or not? (Do you inherit a not from the base spec?)
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-24 for -16)
Unknown
-16 addressed my other comments, (thanks), not sure if these were missed or not but don't think I saw any response - Is "relation types" correct in section 4, 1st para? - 4.3, where is delta-seconds defined?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown