Telechat Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2013-12-17
Requested 2013-11-11
Authors Roy Fielding, Julian Reschke
Draft last updated 2013-12-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -25 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -24 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Klaas Wierenga (diff)
Secdir Early review of -?? by Klaas Wierenga
Assignment Reviewer Menachem Dodge 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24-opsdir-telechat-dodge-2013-12-10
Reviewed rev. 24 (document currently at 26)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-12-10






I have reviewed 


conditional-25 for operational impact.


The intended status is for standards track. It indicates that this document shall obsolete RFC 2616. However I think that this document should be an "update" to RFC 2616 as it is "



HTTP/1.1 conditional requests, including metadata header fields for indicating state changes, request header fields for making preconditions on such state, and rules for constructing the responses to a conditional request when one or more preconditions evaluate to false.





The nit tool has produced the following comments: 



 Checking nits according to



  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2616, but the

     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  Miscellaneous warnings:


  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may

     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The

     disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have

     been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights

     to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and

     original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the

     disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this

     comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at

 for more information.)


Other than the above, the document is well written and I have no other issues. 


Thank you kindly.


Best Regards,