Re: Major errors in Caching and Cache-Control

> This is the public mailing mailing list. Implementors were encouraged
> to review draft -03, draft -04a (WORKING GROUP LAST CALL), and,
> barring that, the draft -04 being released today is available for
> review. So I don't accept your assessment that sections have not had
> adequate review. That's what we're doing now: reviewing.

The draft is ~100 pages long, and most of us have been doing a comprehensive
(but not in-depth) review for several weeks now.  What I am saying
is that nobody has been discussing the Cache-Control header field AND
that it contains serious errors on even a casual perusal, which implies
that it hasn't been adequately reviewed (including by me).

What I would like is for people who are not busy generating the current
draft spend their "free time" in a productive way by focusing on a specific
problem area, rather than continuing to think about minor details.
I intend to do that as well (after I get some sleep).

> Your technical concerns are noted, and I believe that all of the
> problems you note as "FATAL" should be and will be reviewed carefully,
> although "FATAL" or even "fatal" is hyperbole.

Sorry, "FATAL" is my short-hand for an error that incorrectly specifies
the protocol in such a way that I (personally) cannot accept it as a
definition of the protocol, no matter what timeline is involved, unless
someone (anyone) can demonstrate that I am wrong in my interpretation
(quite possible, but unlikely) or the problem is fixed.  In other words,
it kills the draft for consideration as a proposed standard, since I've
never seen the IESG approve a draft that its own authors could not agree
was an adequate description of the protocol.

The sooner it gets reviewed, the sooner it gets done ...

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056

Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 14:09:06 UTC