Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 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 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Description modified (diff)
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…
- Description modified (diff)
comment:5 Changed 9 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 9 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 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Description modified (diff)
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Description modified (diff)
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
- Type changed from design to editorial
From [2503]:
typo (see #524)