Changes between Initial Version and Version 2 of Ticket #543


Ignore:
Timestamp:
02/01/14 08:16:37 (7 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #543

    • Property Origin changed from to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-dir/current/msg00076.html
    • Property Severity changed from In WG Last Call to In IESG Evaluation
    • Property Component changed from non-specific to p6-cache
    • Property Milestone changed from unassigned to 26
    • Property Owner set to draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache@…
  • Ticket #543 – Description

    initial v2  
     1Lionel Morand:
     2
     3----
     4
    15#1: Section 1.2.1. Delta Seconds
    26
     
    711How should the "ought to" above be interpreted? If it is a recommendation, "SHOULD" is maybe more appropriate.
    812
     13----
     14
    915#2: section 4.3.1. Sending a Validation Request
    1016
    1117No 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?
     18
     19----
    1220
    1321#3: section 5.2. Cache-Control
     
    2028"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.
    2129
     30----
    2231
    2332#4: section 5.5. Warning