W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2022

Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 06:22:42 -0800
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, tpauly@apple.com, tpauly@apple.com
Message-ID: <164208376192.17432.3648042547351768085@ietfa.amsl.com>
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control-03: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. Even not being a specialist, the
interest of the document is clear (and the document itself is easy to read).

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for the shepherd's write-up including the section
about the WG consensus (and be clear about that I-D is mainly the work of 3
CDNs).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Generic comment: while the document appears to be very generic (barring my
comment below), it actually only requests IANA for a "CDN-Cache-Control"
targeted header, I.e., should this be reflected in the title ?

-- Section 1 --
Is there any reason why the enterprise caches/proxies are not mentioned in the
first § ?

-- Section 2.2 --
As the target list is merely a local decision, why are the behaviours specified
as a "MUST" and not as a "SHOULD" ? I.e., after all it is all local decisions
and there could be local constraints/restrictions. There is also no negotiation
between the cache and its upstream cache/origin that could contractually bind
the 2 parties.

== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --
In "a Web site", does "web" really deserve being capitalised ?

-- Section 2.1 --
In "as if the field were not present" should field be in the plural form ?
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2022 14:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 13 January 2022 14:22:58 UTC