- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:50:57 +1100
- To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
- Cc: "draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Francesca, > On 10 Dec 2021, at 8:46 am, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Thank you for the work on this document. > > I only have two minor comments, please address them at the same time as the Last Call comments. > > I have opened a github issue with this text: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1831 > > Francesca > > 1. ----- > > FP: Probably just me missing this conversation, but I was surprised to see that section 2.4 explicitly calls for fields that needs to be registered to use this document as specification document. That surprises me, since for permanent registrations the registration procedure is specification required, and so a specification going into detail for that field should be provided. Maybe what this document meant to say was that draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control should be *one of* the specifications for new registrations? This specification contains all of the necessary details to parse, serialise, understand and apply the semantics of those headers -- the only thing it lacks is the target for the semantics. In most cases, that will be obvious based upon the context -- e.g., Akamai-Cache-Control with a reference to this document is pretty clear about its semantics, and in a pinch Akamai can add some information in its local documentation (perhaps meriting an additional link or note in the registry). > FP: Section 3.1 Examples should have a sentence specifying what the target list for those examples is. See: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/d0e95724e9 Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 10 December 2021 03:51:18 UTC