Andy Newton's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-05: (with DISCUSS)

Andy Newton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-05: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-cache-groups/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-05
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  -
  https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-05.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Discuss

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/,
a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

Thanks for writing this document. It is very well written and easy to read.

### Your Fav Pop Star HERE

I hate to be that guy, but...

187        Cache-Group-Invalidation: "eurovision-results", "kylie-minogue"

TIL that Australia is a member of the EBU and therefore this is a logical
grouping, however does this document require the use of real people and
organizations to create an interoperable specification?

### Maximum Length

I see that minimum lengths are set:

205        Implementations MUST support at least 32 groups in a field value,
206        with up to at least 32 characters in each member.  Note that generic
207        limitations on HTTP field lengths may constrain the size of this
208        field value in practice.

However, no maximum field or string lengths are set. I see this in RFC 9651:

    This specification defines minimums for the length or number of
    various structures supported by implementations. It does not specify
    maximum sizes in most cases, but authors should be aware that HTTP
    implementations do impose various limits on the size of individual
    fields, the total number of fields, and/or the size of the entire
    header or trailer section.

Should this document set maximums? If not, is the expected behavior that the
headers are ignored?

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2025 20:52:40 UTC