Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt> (Prefer Header for HTTP) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:20:56 -0700

At 11:44 14-09-2012, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'Prefer Header for HTTP'
>   <draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt> as 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 2012-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be

I took a quick look at the draft.

In the Abstract:

   "This specification defines an HTTP header field that can be used by a
    client to request that certain behaviors be implemented by a server
    while processing a request."

The "request that certain behaviors be implemented by a server" 
sounds odd.  The "employ" from the Introduction section is a better fit.

In Section 2:

   "A server that does not recognize or is unable to comply with
    particular preference tokens in the Prefer header field of a request
    MUST ignore those tokens and MUST NOT stop processing or signal an
    error."

Suggested text:

    A server that does not recognize or is unable to comply with
    particular preference tokens in the Prefer header field of a request
    MUST ignore those tokens and continue processing instead of signalling
    an error.

In Section 4.1:

   "Registration requests consist of the completed registration template
    below, typically published in an RFC or Open Standard (in the sense
    described by Section 7 of [RFC2026])."

Is it necessary to get into the details of the Specification Required 
policy?  "Permanent and readily available public specification" would 
be better than the reference to RFC 2026.

BTW, the RFC 5023 informative reference is missing.

Regards,
-sm