Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#543 closed design (duplicate)

OPS-dir review of p6-cache

Reported by: mnot@… 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@…)

Lionel Morand:


#1: Section 1.2.1. Delta Seconds

"A recipient parsing a delta-seconds value and converting it to binary

form ought to use an arithmetic type of at least 31 bits of non- negative integer range."

How should the "ought to" above be interpreted? If it is a recommendation, "SHOULD" is maybe more appropriate.


#2: section 4.3.1. Sending a Validation Request

No normative wording is used in this section, especially there is no "MUST" and "MUST NOT". It seems therefore that this part is only for information and provides some guidelines for sending validation requests. Is it really the intention here?


#3: section 5.2. Cache-Control

"For the directives defined below that define arguments, recipients ought

to accept both forms, even if one is documented to be preferred. For any directive not defined by this specification, a recipient MUST accept both forms."

"MUST" seems more appropriate than "ought to" in the first sentence above. As I understand the rest of the document, a recommendation can be given in the form to use for a given directive (when applicable) but it is expected that both forms will be always accepted by the cache. As a consequence,it does not seem so relevant to make the difference between directives defined in this document and in other documents.


#4: section 5.5. Warning

It could be clarified that Warn-text are only intended to be human readable or to be logged and should not affect the interpretation of the warn-code.

Change History (3)

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

  • Component changed from non-specific to p6-cache
  • Owner set to draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache@…

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

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 26
  • origin set to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-dir/current/msg00076.html
  • Severity changed from In WG Last Call to In IESG Evaluation

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Resolution set to duplicate
  • Status changed from new to closed

See #535

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.