- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:08:43 +1100
- To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, tpauly@apple.com
HI Éric, Thanks for the comments; responses below. > On 14 Jan 2022, at 1:22 am, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > 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 ? Originally it was, but we got some strong representations that it should be a more broad framework, rather than just for that. "Targeted HTTP Cache Control and the CDN-Cache-Control Header Field" seems a bit wordy... > -- Section 1 -- > Is there any reason why the enterprise caches/proxies are not mentioned in the > first § ? Speaking very generally, there usually isn't a relationship between those devices and the services they're caching, so there isn't a strong motivation to target directives at them specifically. That use isn't prohibited, of course -- it's just not very common, so we didn't think it worth calling out. > -- 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. The behaviour needs to be deterministic (there's a long history of caches taking liberty with directives, at the expense of interoperability). That's not to say it's inflexible; the target list is under control of the cache, and can be adapted on a per-request basis. It's just that when a request 'hits' the target list, it needs to operate in a deterministic fashion. Also, if we specified as SHOULD, we'd need to describe what conditions satisfy the SHOULD... > == NITS == > > -- Section 1 -- > In "a Web site", does "web" really deserve being capitalised ? It's this way because I've written a lot for the W3C, where 'Web' is still the norm. I'm reasonably sure the RPC will make a decision that's consistent with our style. :) > -- Section 2.1 -- > In "as if the field were not present" should field be in the plural form ? No, I don't think so. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 14 January 2022 00:09:03 UTC