[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 03 November 2013 15:06 UTC

Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131103061113.0db92cb8@elandnews.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 07:01:22 -0800
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13
Precedence: list

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
for this draft (for background on APPSDIR, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13
Title: Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registrations
Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
Review Date: November 3, 2013
IETF Last Call Date: October 21, 2013

Summary: This draft is nearly reading for publication as an Informational RFC.

The document registers those Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 
methods which have been defined in standards-track RFCs before the 
IANA HTTP Method Registry was established.  The methods listed in the 
document is generally used for WebDAV.

Some of the HTTP methods are extensions to HTTP.  The (new) registry 
does not provide any information to distinguish between a method 
which is part of basic HTTP features and a method which is part of an 
extension to HTTP.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues:

I suggest having the HTTP method names being registered in Section 3 
instead of Appendix A as the document is not of much use with that 
main information.

Nits:

The LINK and UNLINK HTTP methods are defined in RFC 2068 which was 
obsoleted by RFC 2616.    I gather that they are listed so that the 
method name is not reused.

Editorial nits are not included in this review.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-h… Julian Reschke
[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpb… S Moonesamy