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

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/