Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25 - Githubissues

httpwg / httpbis-issues

1 stars 1 forks source link

Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25 #525

Closed mnot closed 3 years ago

mnot commented 10 years ago

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

Reported by julian.reschke@gmx.de, migrated from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/525

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

Major issues:

none

Minor issues:

none

Nits/editorial comments:

Part 4 of:

draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

*draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"

-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?

[Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?

Best Regards,

Meral

to:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

Major issues:

none

Minor issues:

none

Nits/editorial comments:

Part 4 of:

draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

*draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?

[Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?

Best Regards,

Meral

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed milestone from unassigned to 26
julian.reschke@gmx.de changed severity from In IETF LC to In IESG Evaluation

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed type from design to editorial

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

Major issues:

none

Minor issues:

none

Nits/editorial comments:

Part 4 of:

draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

*draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?

[Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?

Best Regards,

Meral

to:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

Major issues:

none

Minor issues:

none

Nits/editorial comments:

Part 4 of:

draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

*draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

Meral

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

Major issues:

none

Minor issues:

none

Nits/editorial comments:

Part 4 of:

draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

*draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

Meral

to:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

to:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

to:

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

-[Page 4], Introduction, it would make the draft clearer if we give 1-2 every day examples of when conditions are used/useful.

~~-[Page 10], "filesystem"---->"file system"~~ - see 2502

~~-General comment: since mostly used with caching, why not considered merging with part 6?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~~- [Page 22], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?~~ - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

mnot commented 10 years ago

@mnot commented:

Re: examples in introduction - there are already examples below.

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed resolution to wontfix
julian.reschke@gmx.de changed status from new to closed