W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2021

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control-02

From: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:11:53 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
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>
Message-ID: <HE1PR07MB42170A1F43A241D71CDC8EE898719@HE1PR07MB4217.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Mark,

Thanks for the quick reply. Ok, I understand, and I guess what I was thinking was that (to continue with your example) it would make sense to list both this document and the link to the documentation as specifications for the registry, if documentation exists – i.e. not limit the reference to only this document. But again this is minor, so I am happy with your answer, and making sure it was considered.

Thanks for adding the one line about the target list.


From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Friday, 10 December 2021 at 04:51
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>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control-02
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://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-10bdb25e4641dca9&q=1&e=0-b7953d35ae4b06b56c683a662649000c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fhttpwg%2Fhttp-extensions%2Fissues%2F1831

> 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.



Mark Nottingham   https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-f789ee25791b0a49&q=1&e=0-b7953d35ae4b06b56c683a662649000c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F

Received on Friday, 10 December 2021 14:12:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:06 UTC