Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.txt> (Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:43:58 -0800

The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
WG (httpbis) to consider the following document:
- 'Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer
   Protocol (HTTP)'
  <draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-03-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:33:39 -0500

I'm sorry not to have posted this during WGLC, but I didn't notice it until now:

The document uses the phrase "are advised [to do something]" in two
places (the penultimate paragraph in Section 4.3, and the beginning of
Appendix D).  I suggest that we either switch to 2119 language
("SHOULD [do something]") or insert a sentence into section 2 that
explains the normative meaning of "ADVISED" that we intend (as being
softer than SHOULD).  Even if we want to leave it fluffy, we should
probably make it clear that we're intentionally leaving it fluffy.[1]

Barry

[1] Apologies to Cullen, in case he has trademarked "fluffy".