W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Fwd: [httpbis] #524: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:31:02 +0100
Message-ID: <529E3F86.60009@greenbytes.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
(FYI)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [httpbis] #524: Gen-ART Last Call review 
draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25
Resent-To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, mnot@mnot.net
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:52:51 -0000
From: httpbis <trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache@tools.ietf.org, julian.reschke@gmx.de

#524: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-
   julian.reschke@gmx.de  |  httpbis-p6-cache@tools.ietf.org
      Type:  design       |     Status:  new
  Priority:  normal       |  Milestone:  unassigned
Component:  p6-cache     |   Severity:  In WG Last Call
  Keywords:               |     Origin:  http://www.ietf.org/mail-
                          |  archive/web/gen-art/current/msg09377.html
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
  Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25

  Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

  Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

  IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

  IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19





  Summary:

  This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have
  some comments.





  Major issues:

  none





  Minor issues:

  none





  Nits/editorial comments:

  Part 6 of:

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

  *draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

  draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)



  -As mentioned in p4 review, was it considered merging p4 and p6?



  -[Page 1], abstract, Suggestion to change the sentence to remove the word
  "requirements" to avoid confusion with a Requirements RFC (which is
  usually followed by the spec).

  "This document defines requirements on HTTP caches... "



  -[Page 12], last paragraph, suggestion to use SHOULD  or MUST



  "heuristics can only be used on responses without explicit
  freshness"----->

  "heuristics SHOULD/MUST only be used on responses without explicit
  freshness"



  -[Page 19], "update the stored response a described below;"--
  typo-->"update the stored response as described below;



  -[Page 22], does is matter if it is strong versus weak validation?

  "

  5.2.1.4.  no-cache



     The "no-cache" request directive indicates that a cache MUST NOT use

     a stored response to satisfy the request without successful

     validation on the origin server.

  "

  -[Page 34], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it
  be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related
  to HTTP?







  Best Regards,

  Meral

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/524>
httpbis <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 20:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC