Changeset 562 for draft-ietf-httpbis/latest

Timestamp:

24/03/09 16:03:31 (13 years ago)

Author:

julian.reschke@…

Message:

add anchors to a few TODOs

Location:

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest

Files:

• p6-cache.html (modified) (14 diffs)
• p6-cache.xml (modified) (2 diffs)

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html

@@ -468 +468 @@
          <tr>
             <td class="header left"></td>
-            <td class="header right">March 12, 2009</td>
+            <td class="header right">March 24, 2009</td>
          </tr>
       </table>
@@ -738 +738 @@
          </li>
       </ul>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.2"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.1">[<a href="#rfc.comment.1" class="smpl">rfc.comment.1</a>: TODO: define method cacheability for GET, HEAD and POST in p2-semantics.]</span> 
-      </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.3">When a stored response is used to satisfy a request, caches <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a single Age header field <a href="#header.age" id="rfc.xref.header.age.1" title="Age">Section&nbsp;3.1</a> in the response with a value equal to the stored response's current_age; see <a href="#age.calculations" title="Calculating Age">Section&nbsp;2.3.2</a>. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.2">[<a href="#rfc.comment.2" class="smpl">rfc.comment.2</a>: DISCUSS: this currently includes successfully validated responses.]</span> 
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.2"> <span class="comment" id="TODO-method-cacheability">[<a href="#TODO-method-cacheability" class="smpl">TODO-method-cacheability</a>: define method cacheability for GET, HEAD and POST in p2-semantics.]</span> 
+      </p>
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.3">When a stored response is used to satisfy a request, caches <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a single Age header field <a href="#header.age" id="rfc.xref.header.age.1" title="Age">Section&nbsp;3.1</a> in the response with a value equal to the stored response's current_age; see <a href="#age.calculations" title="Calculating Age">Section&nbsp;2.3.2</a>. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.1">[<a href="#rfc.comment.1" class="smpl">rfc.comment.1</a>: DISCUSS: this currently includes successfully validated responses.]</span> 
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.4">Requests with methods that are unsafe (<a href="p2-semantics.html#safe.methods" title="Safe Methods">Section 7.1.1</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be written through the cache to the origin server; i.e., A cache must not reply to such a request before having forwarded
@@ -750 +750 @@
          forward a request with "Cache-Control: max-age=0" or "Cache-Control: no-cache" to disambiguate which response to use.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.7"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.3">[<a href="#rfc.comment.3" class="smpl">rfc.comment.3</a>: TODO: end-to-end and hop-by-hop headers, non-modifiable headers removed; re-spec in p1]</span> 
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.7"> <span class="comment" id="TODO-header-properties">[<a href="#TODO-header-properties" class="smpl">TODO-header-properties</a>: end-to-end and hop-by-hop headers, non-modifiable headers removed; re-spec in p1]</span> 
       </p>
       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3">2.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="expiration.model" href="#expiration.model">Freshness Model</a></h2>
@@ -761 +761 @@
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.3">If an origin server wishes to force a cache to validate every request, it can assign an explicit expiration time in the past.
-         This means that the response is always stale, so that caches should validate it before using it for subsequent requests. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.4">[<a href="#rfc.comment.4" class="smpl">rfc.comment.4</a>: This wording may cause confusion, because the response may still be served stale.]</span> 
+         This means that the response is always stale, so that caches should validate it before using it for subsequent requests. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.2">[<a href="#rfc.comment.2" class="smpl">rfc.comment.2</a>: This wording may cause confusion, because the response may still be served stale.]</span> 
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.4">Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times, HTTP caches may also assign heuristic expiration times
@@ -775 +775 @@
          with the effect of either increasing or loosening constraints on freshness. See <a href="#cache-request-directive" title="Request Cache-Control Directives">Section&nbsp;3.2.1</a>.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.8"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.5">[<a href="#rfc.comment.5" class="smpl">rfc.comment.5</a>: ISSUE: there are not requirements directly applying to cache-request-directives and freshness.]</span> 
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.8"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.3">[<a href="#rfc.comment.3" class="smpl">rfc.comment.3</a>: ISSUE: there are not requirements directly applying to cache-request-directives and freshness.]</span> 
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.9">Note that freshness applies only to cache operation; it cannot be used to force a user agent to refresh its display or reload
@@ -802 +802 @@
       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.1.p.3">Also, if the response has a Last-Modified header (<a href="p4-conditional.html#header.last-modified" title="Last-Modified">Section 6.6</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>), the heuristic expiration value <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be no more than some fraction of the interval since that time. A typical setting of this fraction might be 10%.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.1.p.4"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.6">[<a href="#rfc.comment.6" class="smpl">rfc.comment.6</a>: REVIEW: took away HTTP/1.0 query string heuristic uncacheability.]</span> 
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.1.p.4"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.4">[<a href="#rfc.comment.4" class="smpl">rfc.comment.4</a>: REVIEW: took away HTTP/1.0 query string heuristic uncacheability.]</span> 
       </p>
       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3.2">2.3.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="age.calculations" href="#age.calculations">Calculating Age</a></h3>
@@ -875 +875 @@
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.4">If instead the cache receives a full response (i.e., one with a response body), it is used to satisfy the request and replace
-         the stored response. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.7">[<a href="#rfc.comment.7" class="smpl">rfc.comment.7</a>: Should there be a requirement here?]</span> 
+         the stored response. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.5">[<a href="#rfc.comment.5" class="smpl">rfc.comment.5</a>: Should there be a requirement here?]</span> 
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.5">If a cache receives a 5xx response while attempting to validate a response, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> either forward this response to the requesting client, or act as if the server failed to respond. In the latter case, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> return a previously stored response (which <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include the 111 warn-code; see <a href="#header.warning" id="rfc.xref.header.warning.2" title="Warning">Section&nbsp;3.6</a>) unless the stored response includes the "must-revalidate" cache directive (see <a href="#serving.stale.responses" title="Serving Stale Responses">Section&nbsp;2.3.3</a>).
@@ -892 +892 @@
          attacks.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.5.p.4"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.8">[<a href="#rfc.comment.8" class="smpl">rfc.comment.8</a>: TODO: "host part" needs to be specified better.]</span> 
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.5.p.4"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.6">[<a href="#rfc.comment.6" class="smpl">rfc.comment.6</a>: TODO: "host part" needs to be specified better.]</span> 
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.5.p.5">A cache that passes through requests for methods it does not understand <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> invalidate the Request-URI.
@@ -902 +902 @@
          change at the origin server might not have gone through the cache where a response is stored.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.5.p.8"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.9">[<a href="#rfc.comment.9" class="smpl">rfc.comment.9</a>: TODO: specify that only successful (2xx, 3xx?) responses invalidate.]</span> 
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.5.p.8"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.7">[<a href="#rfc.comment.7" class="smpl">rfc.comment.7</a>: TODO: specify that only successful (2xx, 3xx?) responses invalidate.]</span> 
       </p>
       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.6"><a href="#rfc.section.2.6">2.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="caching.negotiated.responses" href="#caching.negotiated.responses">Caching Negotiated Responses</a></h2>
@@ -911 +911 @@
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.6.p.3">The selecting request-headers from two requests are defined to match if and only if the selecting request-headers in the first
-         request can be transformed to the selecting request-headers in the second request by adding or removing linear white space <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.10">[<a href="#rfc.comment.10" class="smpl">rfc.comment.10</a>: [ref]]</span> at places where this is allowed by the corresponding ABNF, and/or combining multiple message-header fields with the same field
-         name following the rules about message headers in <a href="p1-messaging.html#message.headers" title="Message Headers">Section 4.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.12"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.11">[<a href="#rfc.comment.11" class="smpl">rfc.comment.11</a>: DISCUSS: header-specific canonicalisation]</span> 
+         request can be transformed to the selecting request-headers in the second request by adding or removing linear white space <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.8">[<a href="#rfc.comment.8" class="smpl">rfc.comment.8</a>: [ref]]</span> at places where this is allowed by the corresponding ABNF, and/or combining multiple message-header fields with the same field
+         name following the rules about message headers in <a href="p1-messaging.html#message.headers" title="Message Headers">Section 4.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.12"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.9">[<a href="#rfc.comment.9" class="smpl">rfc.comment.9</a>: DISCUSS: header-specific canonicalisation]</span> 
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.6.p.4">A Vary header field-value of "*" always fails to match, and subsequent requests to that resource can only be properly interpreted
@@ -925 +925 @@
       <p id="rfc.section.2.6.p.7">If a cache receives a successful response whose Content-Location field matches that of an existing stored response for the
          same Request-URI, whose entity-tag differs from that of the existing stored response, and whose Date is more recent than that
-         of the existing response, the existing response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be returned in response to future requests and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be deleted from the cache.<span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.12">[<a href="#rfc.comment.12" class="smpl">rfc.comment.12</a>: DISCUSS: Not sure if this is necessary.]</span> 
+         of the existing response, the existing response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be returned in response to future requests and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be deleted from the cache.<span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.10">[<a href="#rfc.comment.10" class="smpl">rfc.comment.10</a>: DISCUSS: Not sure if this is necessary.]</span> 
       </p>
       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.7"><a href="#rfc.section.2.7">2.7</a>&nbsp;<a id="combining.headers" href="#combining.headers">Combining Responses</a></h2>
@@ -948 +948 @@
          all such old headers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be replaced. It <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> store the combined entity-body.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.7.p.5"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.13">[<a href="#rfc.comment.13" class="smpl">rfc.comment.13</a>: ISSUE: discuss how to handle HEAD updates]</span> 
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.7.p.5"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.11">[<a href="#rfc.comment.11" class="smpl">rfc.comment.11</a>: ISSUE: discuss how to handle HEAD updates]</span> 
       </p>
       <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.fields" href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
@@ -1034 +1034 @@
             time. If max-stale is assigned a value, then the client is willing to accept a response that has exceeded its expiration time
             by no more than the specified number of seconds. If no value is assigned to max-stale, then the client is willing to accept
-            a stale response of any age. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.14">[<a href="#rfc.comment.14" class="smpl">rfc.comment.14</a>: of any staleness? --mnot]</span></dd>
+            a stale response of any age. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.12">[<a href="#rfc.comment.12" class="smpl">rfc.comment.12</a>: of any staleness? --mnot]</span></dd>
       </dl>
       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.1.p.6"> <span id="rfc.iref.c.8"></span>  <span id="rfc.iref.m.3"></span> min-fresh 
@@ -1535 +1535 @@
       <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.2">Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow
          for transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important to straighten out exactly how message lengths are
-         computed. (see also <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.14"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a> and <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.15">[<a href="#rfc.comment.15" class="smpl">rfc.comment.15</a>: This used to refer to the text about non-modifiable headers, and will have to be updated later on. --jre]</span> 
-      </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.3">Proxies should be able to add Content-Length when appropriate. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.16">[<a href="#rfc.comment.16" class="smpl">rfc.comment.16</a>: This used to refer to the text about non-modifiable headers, and will have to be updated later on. --jre]</span> 
+         computed. (see also <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.14"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a> and <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.13">[<a href="#rfc.comment.13" class="smpl">rfc.comment.13</a>: This used to refer to the text about non-modifiable headers, and will have to be updated later on. --jre]</span> 
+      </p>
+      <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.3">Proxies should be able to add Content-Length when appropriate. <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.14">[<a href="#rfc.comment.14" class="smpl">rfc.comment.14</a>: This used to refer to the text about non-modifiable headers, and will have to be updated later on. --jre]</span> 
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.4">Range request responses would become very verbose if all meta-data were always returned; by allowing the server to only send

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.xml

@@ -476 +476 @@
 </t>
 <t>
-  <cref>TODO: define method cacheability for GET, HEAD and POST in p2-semantics.</cref>
+  <cref anchor="TODO-method-cacheability">define method cacheability for GET, HEAD and POST in p2-semantics.</cref>
 </t>
 <t>
@@ -500 +500 @@
 </t>
 <t>
-  <cref>TODO: end-to-end and hop-by-hop headers, non-modifiable headers removed; re-spec in p1</cref>
+  <cref anchor="TODO-header-properties">end-to-end and hop-by-hop headers, non-modifiable headers removed; re-spec in p1</cref>
 </t>
 </section>