Re: [Gen-art] #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations

On 2013-11-18 19:16, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote: Hello Julian, Responses in-line. From: Julian Reschke [julian.resc...@gmx.de] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 12:46 PM To: HTTP Working Group; Moriarty, Kathleen Subject: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14

On 2013-11-18 22:02, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote: Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14 Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty Review Date: November 18, 2013 IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: 12/19 Summary: Please check idnits, there are several issues to resolve. You can see the list from

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14

On 2013-11-18 22:39, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote: Hi Julian, Sorry, I should have looked at the comparison, the 'IP address' error is picking up on a section number that went to the next line and does not have Section in front of it. This is fine. As for the pre-2008 message, I can't see why th

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14

On 2013-11-19 18:53, Barry Leiba wrote: -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights

[Gen-art] spec size and organization, was: Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25

-General comment 1, I am not very keen with the idea of splitting the http standard in so many RFCs. It is hard to follow and the protocol is not complex enough to justify these lengthy documents. I would have rather see 1 concise standard RFC and few Extension RFCs, Informational or

Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25

Meral, some more comments inline: -[Page 5] in the intro, right after it says "This HTTP/1.1 specification obsoletes and moves to historic status RFC 2616", it would help to add a reference to Appendix B and mention this is where the differences with RFC2616 is listed. That would b

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25

On 2013-12-19 17:02, Jari Arkko wrote: Meral, Thank you for your review (once again!) Was there ever a response to the comments? Having reviewed the comments, I agree with the examples comment, but I don't think there's anything in the comments that would cause me to raise a Discuss. Editori

Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25

On 2013-12-09 23:42, Meral Shirazipour wrote: ... -[Page 17], "non-interim" , not clear how it can be determines as non- interim (no other message in between? or under a certain peruiod of time?) "non-interim" = ? Non-1xx. See

Re: [Gen-art] [rfc-i] review: draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04

On 2014-04-08 11:32, Joel M. Halpern wrote: ... Does section 2.5 still need to be enclosed in the cdata construct to actually have the formatting preserved? If so, should section 2.5 say that? (Or am I just confused and issuing useless incantations in my current docs?) There is no need

[Gen-art] CDATA, was: [rfc-i] review: draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04

On 2014-04-08 17:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: ... Does section 2.5 still need to be enclosed in the cdata construct to actually have the formatting preserved? If so, should section 2.5 say that? (Or am I just confused and issuing useless incantations in my current docs?) The latter, and I

Re: [Gen-art] Early review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-08.txt

On 2014-06-19 20:51, Tom Taylor wrote: ... Given that this is an early review, I did not run IDnits. I did check all the internal cross-references (I think), and they were all correct. I'd be interested in how that was achieved. I end up flipping back and forth in my documents to find the value o

Re: [Gen-art] Early review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-08.txt

Hi Tom, thanks for the review. I've applied most of the changes, see for the diffs. Some comments inline: On 2014-06-19 20:51, Tom Taylor wrote: > ... In the description of the 'year' attribute of , the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art early review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-09

Elwyn, thanks for the review. I'll get to most things later, but let me comment on: > s1, para 2: OLD It obsoletes the original version ("v1") [RFC2629], which contained the original language definition, and which was subsequently extended ("v2", [V1rev]). Furthermore, it discusses

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: status-change-http-status-code-308-ps-01

On 2014-12-11 16:37, Robert Sparks wrote: --- I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft^H^H^H^H^Hstatus-change. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Pl

Re: [Gen-art] [http-auth] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-httpauth-hoba-08

On 2014-12-27 04:15, Black, David wrote: The -08 draft addresses all of the important issues in the combined Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of the -07 version, and is a definite improvement over its -07 version. Based on discussion of item [5], there are a couple of remaining editorial nits in Secti

[Gen-art] IANA considerations, was: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10

On 2015-01-20 09:22, Martin Thomson wrote: ... idnits complained that it couldn't find an IANA Considerations section. Please add an empty one (stating that there are no IANA Considerations) if/when the draft is revised. I tend to think that absence of "IANA Considerations" and a section with

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-htpbis-rfc7238bis-02.txt

On 2015-02-04 05:44, Suresh Krishnan wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of th

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-06

On 2015-02-19 18:34, Meral Shirazipour wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

Hi Francis, thanks for the feedback. On 2016-02-29 15:07, Francis Dupont wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other l

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-04

Hi Stewart, thanks a lot. > ... Nits/editorial comments: Should say Obsoletes: RFC5987 (if approved) ("RFC" missing) No. See . Extended notation, using the Unicode characters U+00A3 ("£", POUND SIGN) and U+20AC ("€", EURO SIGN): My Europ

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08

On 06.02.2019 08:21, Mark Nottingham wrote: Hi Erik! On 6 Feb 2019, at 6:10 pm, Erik Kline wrote: Nits/editorial comments: [1] I assume the URIs in 6.3 are also meant to be deleted upon publication? Not all of them; just the ones referenced from the section that's marked for deletion. ..

[Gen-art] Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]

From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: General Area Review Team Subject: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see _http://www.alvestrand.no/iet

[Gen-art] Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]

Elwyn Davies schrieb: Hi. No problems with most of this. Deleted the stuff with agreed actions. A couple of responses in line to clarify my points... /Elwyn Julian Reschke wrote: s21 IANA Considerations: The various items here do not require new registrations as they were all registered

[Gen-art] Confidentiality of lock information (BugZilla issue 260), was: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]

Julian Reschke schrieb: Potential security implications of lockdiscovery: s6.8 requires a compliant server to support lockdiscovery and expects the response to this request to include the names of principals and potentially the lock tokens for locks being held on a resource. The privacy

[Gen-art] Unlocking notifications (BugZilla issue 259), was: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]

Julian Reschke schrieb: ... s6.6, para 3: 'notifications should be sent': Is this supposed to be a function of webdav? This is the only mention of lock notifications in the document. This text has always been in the spec, but you are the second one to complain. Opened i

[Gen-art] Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]

Julian Reschke schrieb: From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: General Area Review Team Subject: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt ... s9.2: I think I know what 'document order' means but it isn't actually defined. That's a g

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07

Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > ... > Personally, I don't even like RFC Editor notes for things that can and > should be corrected by the author. As both an author and an AD, I much > preferred clean new copies. > ... Absolutely. The more edits need to be done in AUTH48, the more likely it is that

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23 > Reviewer: Pete McCann > Review Date: 29 May 2009 > IETF LC End Date: 28 May 2009 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-05

Spencer Dawkins wrote: ... 3. WebDAV extended MKCOL The WebDAV MKCOL request is extended to allow the inclusion of a request body. The request body is an XML document containing a single DAV:mkcol XML element as the root element. The Content-Type Spencer (minor): if I'm reading this pa

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-02

Hi Spencer, thanks for the feedback; comments inline. Spencer Dawkins wrote: ... I have three comments on this short draft... I wish the IETF community had a clearer understanding of the relationship between Historic and Obsolete than we have, but that's a comment for IESG action, not a comm

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

Brian E Carpenter wrote: As far as I can tell, the proposal places the burden for ensuring atomicity entirely on the server. However, PATCH is explicitly not idempotent. If a client issues a PATCH, and the server executes the PATCH, but the client then fails to receive an indication of success

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2009-11-13 20:19, Julian Reschke wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: As far as I can tell, the proposal places the burden for ensuring atomicity entirely on the server. However, PATCH is explicitly not idempotent. If a client issues a PATCH, and the server executes the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

John C Klensin wrote: ... Standard etag conflict resolution is not required because it is not desirable for many applications of PATCH. For other applications of PATCH, it is already defined by HTTP and does not need to be reiterated here. We disagree. I believe it does "need to be reiterate

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

John C Klensin wrote: ... 1) the client can't control whether the etag will be strong, and weak etags may work just fine in certain instances, so just be silent about the type Silent, no. But saying "can't control... certain instances" explicitly would be fine. I'd be even happier with an ex

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: These are the sort of changes that would, I believe, give sufficient indication to a would-be user of PATCH of how to make it somewhat safe. Personally I'd prefer to see it made more prominent by starting with somethi

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-reschke-webdav-post-06

Hi Roni, thanks for the feedback. Comments in-line. On 12.04.2010 16:49, Roni Even wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05

On 2012-03-12 17:15, Ben Campbell wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of th

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05

On 2012-03-12 18:48, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: ... Julian, I think it would be helpful for you to submit your latest copy before the deadline today, so that we don't need to wait until March 26. Done; I usually avoid changing drafts during LC; but I think it makes sense in this case. Best r

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05

On 2012-03-16 22:06, Ben Campbell wrote: Apologies for the delayed response--the day job got in the way this week. Comments inline: On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-03-12 17:15, Ben Campbell wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-18.txt

Citing from Sean's dicuss (): 1) I'm hoping the answer to this one is "there's no problem" but I gotta ask and maybe the APPs ADs can confirm: Is there any issue with this specification using ABNF from [I-D.ietf-h

[Gen-art] where do error codes go?, was: [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-18.txt

On 2012-04-10 16:03, Alexey Melnikov wrote: ... 2). Section "3.1. Error Codes" I've suggested to use an IANA registry for this field. Apparently there is already a registry created by . However this document doesn't register values

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-17 18:10, Mike Jones wrote: FYI, the b64 token definition is identical to the one in draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20. If it works there, it should work for OAuth Bearer. ... +1; not every constraint needs to be expressed in the ABNF. "b64token" is here so recipients can parse the hea

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-17 19:15, Mike Jones wrote: For clarity of discussion, the definition in question is: b64token= 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" ) *"=" Note that b64token is a liberal syntax intended to permit base64 encoded content (hence the in

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-17 19:39, Mike Jones wrote: Yes, the decision to remove normative references to HTTPbis was made during the public OAuth status call on Monday, July 9th, as the call participants wanted to be able to publish the RFC before HTTPbis is published as an RFC. Well, it would have been ni

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-17 19:54, Mike Jones wrote: The change and the reason for it were called out to the working group in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09594.html. Indeed, as fait accompli. There were four days between the telco and the publication of the new draft for actually

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-17 20:01, Mike Jones wrote: You should actually probably make that name change request to the HTTPbis working group. I suspect that if they decide to change the name, that we could direct the RFC editor to make the same name change as HTTPbis does. ... HTTPbis describes the produc

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-17 20:03, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-07-17 19:54, Mike Jones wrote: The change and the reason for it were called out to the working group in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09594.html. Indeed, as fait accompli. There were four days between the telco and the

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-18 13:37, Alexey Melnikov wrote: On 17/07/2012 19:01, Mike Jones wrote: You should actually probably make that name change request to the HTTPbis working group. I suspect that if they decide to change the name, that we could direct the RFC editor to make the same name change as HTTPb

Re: [Gen-art] [art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

On 26.11.2019 23:47, Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote: ... It might be good to capture in the "Note to Readers" that the RFC Editor should also remove Section 6.3 (URIs) since all the references to them will be removed with the removal of this Note. ... FWIW, that's not needed as that sectio

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16

Am 11.06.2021 um 13:44 schrieb Lars Eggert: Dale, thank you for your review, which I hope will see a response soon. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars ... We're currently collecting the feedback in Github (here: ) and ar