Telechat Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24
review-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24-opsdir-telechat-dodge-2013-12-10-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 26) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2013-12-17 | |
Requested | 2013-11-11 | |
Authors | Roy T. Fielding , Julian Reschke | |
I-D 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 | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 24 (document currently at 26) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2013-12-10 |
review-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24-opsdir-telechat-dodge-2013-12-10-00
Hi, I have reviewed draft-ietf-httpbis-p4- 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 " adding" 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 http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) Other than the above, the document is well written and I have no other issues. Thank you kindly. Best Regards, Menachem