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

Admittedly, I may have spent too much time studying law recently. How about this:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/5adb7686d3e6c98291adbcba13dca0b2cffde2ac
?

Cheers,


> On 5 Aug 2021, at 6:33 pm, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Mark for the prompt reply and your answers.
> 
> Nothing is blocking obviously but I still find the abstract use of 'codifies' and 'updates' quite unusual and somehow confusing...
> 
> Regards
> 
> -éric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Date: Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 06:14
> To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header@ietf.org>, "httpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <httpbis-chairs@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "tpauly@apple.com" <tpauly@apple.com>
> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header-09: (with COMMENT)
> 
>    Hi Éric,
> 
>    Thanks for the comments.  Responses below.
> 
>> -- 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 ?
> 
>    'it' refers to the immediately preceding noun, 'practice' -- i.e. there's a widespread non-standardised practice. We're not using 'update' here in the sense of 'IETF document update'.
> 
>> 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 :-)
> 
>    'codification' in the sense that it's collecting and restating currently informal practice.
> 
>> -- Section 2 --
>> 
>> Out of curiosity, why do all parameters start with "sf-" ?
> 
>    Because they're ABNF from Structured Fields (RFC8941).
> 
>> How is the IP address specified ? Should RFC 5952 be referenced ?
> 
>    At this level, the construct is an opaque string; we're not expecting people to validate that it's an IP address or hostname, or use that for any processing. 
> 
>> "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)
> 
>    This is a good question. I've tried to clarify here:
>      https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/560389ff2
> 
>    Is that better?
> 
>> -- Section 2.2 --
>> Should there be a "other" value to catch up any other cases ?
> 
>    That would encourage divergence of behaviour in implementations, and reduce the value of the specification. The current values should capture the prominent states in the HTTP caching model; if not, we can add new parameters.
> 
>> == NITS ==
>> 
>> -- Section 2 --
>> Just wondering about the capitalized 'List' in 'Its value is a List' when the
>> rest of the section uses lowercase 'list'.
> 
>    That indicates it's a Structured Fields List. The other instances of 'list' are talking about manipulating the underlying data structure.
> 
>    Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    --
>    Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 6 August 2021 06:35:19 UTC