Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#524 closed editorial (fixed)

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

Reported by: julian.reschke@… Owned by: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 26
Component: p6-cache Severity: In IESG Evaluation
Keywords: Cc:

Description (last modified by 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

Change History (8)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [2503]:

typo (see #524)

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by mnot@…

From [2504]:

remove 'requirements' from p6 abstract; see #524

comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by mnot@…

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 26
  • Severity changed from In WG Last Call to In IESG Evaluation

comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by 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

comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Type changed from design to editorial
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.