Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-05: (with COMMENT)

Done, thanks.


> On 2 May 2025, at 5:44 pm, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Mark,
>  I would suggest adding one or two lines when the field is defined, along the line you just wrote (operational considerations are important)
>  Regards
>  -éric
>  From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Date: Friday, 2 May 2025 at 09:23
> To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>
> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tpauly@apple.com<tpauly@apple.com>
> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-05: (with COMMENT)
> Hi Éric,
> 
> > On 2 May 2025, at 5:00 pm, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Nice, easy to read, and useful document.
> > 
> > Just one comment, when reading "opaque" I was expecting an apparently
> > meaningless string, e.g., a hash of something, but readable strings are used in
> > the examples. Should there be some operational guidance on the 'group' string
> > (meaningful vs. random strings) ?
> 
> The intent is that it's opaque from the perspective of the cache -- i.e., the cache doesn't act on its structure or content.
> 
> Would clarifying that help? It's fine if it's a random string, but making it meaningful to the server (not the cache) is helpful for the operator.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 2 May 2025 21:48:55 UTC