As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard, as indicated in the document.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
This straightforward document defines a new header that HTTP caches can add to indicate details about how a request was handled with respect to caching. This is a standardization and unification of existing practices across the industry.
Working Group Summary:
This document went through WG adoption and review quite smoothly. It mainly engaged those members of the WG that work a lot on caching server deployments, who provided input with respect to how this could unify their implementations.
Several different vendors in the working group have been engaged with this document, and plan to deploy. The document is of good quality, and seems ready for publication.
Document Shepherd: Tommy Pauly
Responsible AD: Francesca Palombini
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I reviewed this document and requested that some minor editorial issues be cleaned up, which was done in version -08.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The reviews for this document have been appropriate for the relatively narrow scope of the topic; they have been mainly from a few contributors in the WG, but thorough.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
WG consensus seems clear; the document received less feedback than some of our larger documents, but was supported by the individuals engaged with this document (who also have the expertise in the topic).
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No discontent has been raised.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No nits found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No changes to existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).
The document is largely about defining a new header, which comes along with a new IANA registry to contain cache-status fields. This is well written and clear.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
HTTP Cache-Status Parameters registry
The HTTPbis WG should likely be consulted for selection of experts; having these experts be consistent with existing registries, such as the HTTP Cache Directive registry, would make sense.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
ABNF rules are valid.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?