Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header-09: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for his shepherd's write-up, which contains a
good summary of the WG consensus and the doc reviews.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and one nit.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
I am puzzled by the use of "updates it" where the "it" is rather undefined...
especially as this document 'codifies' it, hence, this is the first time it is
documented so no need to update it. If I am wrong, perhaps good to add a
reference to the updated document ?

Also wondering about the use of 'codifies' in a standard track document, i.e.,
I was expected a 'specifies'. But, as a non-English speaker, the subtle
differences among the English in different continents probably escape me :-)

-- Section 2 --

Out of curiosity, why do all parameters start with "sf-" ?

How is the IP address specified ? Should RFC 5952 be referenced ?

"The Cache-Status header field is only applicable to responses that have been
generated by an origin server." but how can a cache know whether it connected
to the 'actual origin' and not another level of CDN ? (possibly a very naive
question)

-- Section 2.2 --
Should there be a "other" value to catch up any other cases ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --
Just wondering about the capitalized 'List' in 'Its value is a List' when the
rest of the section uses lowercase 'list'.

Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2021 10:02:04 UTC