- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:31:02 +0100
- 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