Ticket #535 (closed design: fixed)
IESG ballot on draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25
|Reported by:||firstname.lastname@example.org||Owned by:||email@example.com|
|Component:||p6-cache||Severity:||In IESG Evaluation|
Description (last modified by firstname.lastname@example.org) (diff)
Please see Lionel's OPS-DIR review, and please engage in the discussion:
#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.
We use that phrase consciously when we wanted to give implementation advice, but did not want to make existing implementations non-conformant.
#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?
Yes. The relevant requirements are specified in p4 (as referenced); this is just a discussion of how validation is relevant to caching. Furthermore, caches aren’t required to use validation; it’s just a tool that’s available to them.
#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.
See above; there are historical reasons for this.
#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. -- see 
COMMENT 1: In Section 1, a minor suggestion: OLD: "A private cache, in contrast, is dedicated to a single user." NEW: "A private cache, in contrast, is dedicated to a single user, for instance as a component of a user agent." -- see 
COMMENT 2: In Section 3, you use "cache directive", "cache response directive", and "response cache directive". Choose one. -- see 
*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. -- see #537
0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description. -- see #538
1) What Stephen said about cache poising. -- see 
section 8: It would be very useful to add some references where cache poisoning and how to handle it are explained in more detail. -- see 
comment:12 Changed 12 months ago by email@example.com
- Status changed from new to closed
- Resolution set to fixed