Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25

[julian.reschke@…]

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19

Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some comments.

---

-As mentioned in p4 review, was it considered merging p4 and p6? - see ​http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

---

-[Page 1], abstract, Suggestion to change the sentence to remove the word "requirements" to avoid confusion with a Requirements RFC (which is usually followed by the spec).

"This document defines requirements on HTTP caches... " - see [2504]

---

-[Page 12], last paragraph, suggestion to use SHOULD or MUST

"heuristics can only be used on responses without explicit freshness"----->"heuristics SHOULD/MUST only be used on responses without explicit freshness" - see ​http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

---

-[Page 19], "update the stored response a described below;"--typo-->"update the stored response as described below; - see [2503]

---

-[Page 22], does is matter if it is strong versus weak validation?

"5.2.1.4. no-cache

The "no-cache" request directive indicates that a cache MUST NOT use a stored response to satisfy the request without successful validation on the origin server." - see ​http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

---

-[Page 34], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP? -​http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

[julian.reschke@…]

From [2503]:

typo (see #524)

[mnot@…]

From [2504]:

remove 'requirements' from p6 abstract; see #524

[julian.reschke@…]

see also reply in ​http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html - I believe we can close this issue