Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-snell-http-prefer-16.txt

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:51:45 -0700

FYI... a new version of the HTTP Prefer header draft has been published
based on all of the excellent last call feedback received.

There are several significant changes, all driven by received feedback...

 - "return-representation" and "return-minimal" are now
"return=representation" and "return=minimal".. that is, a single "return"
preference with two possible values
 - "return-asynch" has been renamed to "respond-async" to avoid possible
confusion with the revised "return" preference (and to get rid of that
trailing "h" that was driving so many of you crazy ;-) ...)
 - "lenient" and "strict" are now "handling=lenient" and
"handling=strict".. that is, a single "handling" preference with two
possible values
 - The IANA registration template has been updated to include Value and
Optional Parameter fields
 - Considerations for Expert Review have been clarified for the Preference
Registry, including a specific mention of preference security considerations
 - Ordering parameters is now explicitly dealt with along with several
other minor details relating to parameters
 - A few editorial changes here and there.

- James

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ID Tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Subject: New Version Notification - draft-snell-http-prefer-16.txt
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked], [email-masked]

New version (-16) has been submitted for draft-snell-http-prefer-16.txt.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-http-prefer-16.txt

Diff from previous version:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-snell-http-prefer-16

IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:47:23 +0200

On 2012-10-24 17:51, James M Snell wrote:
> ...

So I think there should be another LC, optimally after we are done with 
the HTTPbis WGLCs.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:09:35 +0200

> So I think there should be another LC, optimally after we are done with

So I hear this was approved in the meantime without another round of 
review. This is bad.

For instance, the newly introduced Preference-Applied header field is 
defined as:

   Preference-Applied = "Preference-Applied" ":" 1#token

and has the example:

    Response:

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Content-Type: application/json
      Preference-Applied: return=representation
      Content-Location: /my-document

      {"a": 1}

But the "token" ABNF production doesn't include "=".

There may be more problems like these. Please go back to LC.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:17:49 -0400

> So I hear this was approved in the meantime without another round of

You needed to have brought this up a lot sooner.

> There may be more problems like these. Please go back to LC.

No.  Please work out any issues with James, and they can be fixed in AUTH48
(which won't happen until the httpbis docs are done anyway).  That
shouldn't be a problem.  But work them out now, before anyone forgets, and
let me know the result so I can be sure the changes get in.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:22:04 -0400

Actually, clarifying the "sooner" (or, really, backing off on it):
For the example below, Julian really had little chance to comment.  That
was made because of a late comment during IESG Evaluation.  Sorry: this
happens sometimes, much as it shouldn't.  I'm glad you caught it.

In any case, the advice stands: please work this out now, and we'll fix it
in AUTH48.

b

On Friday, October 26, 2012, Barry Leiba wrote:

> No.  Please work out any issues with James, and they can be fixed in
> AUTH48 (which won't happen until the httpbis docs are done anyway).  That

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:00:10 -0400

> In any case, the advice stands: please work this out now, and we'll fix it

Repeating something I said to Julian and James off list, so it's on the
record here:
The Secretariat hasn't sent out the approval announcement yet, so I've
asked them not to, and have put the document substate back to "point
raised, writeup needed".  That will give us a chance to get these last
issues reviewed and fixed, and James can post a -17 version after the
pre-meeting blackout ends.

Barry