Skip to main content

HTTP Caching
draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-04-25
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-12-23
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-11-11
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2021-11-11
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from RFC-EDITOR
2021-11-11
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2021-11-10
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2021-10-07
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2021-10-06
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2021-10-06
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2021-10-06
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2021-10-06
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2021-10-06
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from On Hold
2021-09-15
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress
2021-09-13
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-09-13
19 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-09-13
19 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-09-13
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-09-13
19 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2021-09-13
19 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2021-09-13
19 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-09-13
19 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2021-09-13
19 Barry Leiba Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Henry Thompson Last Call ARTART review
2021-09-13
19 Barry Leiba Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing
2021-09-13
19 Francesca Palombini The IESG approved the intended status change from Proposed to Internet Standard following the September 9, 2021 IESG Teleconference and follow-up email thread.
2021-09-13
19 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2021-09-13
19 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2021-09-12
19 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2021-09-12
19 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19.txt
2021-09-12
19 (System) New version approved
2021-09-12
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding
2021-09-12
19 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2021-09-06
18 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2021-09-03
18 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-18. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-18. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the three actions required by this document. Please see below.

Also, IANA understands that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval and completion of IANA Actions in another document:

draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics

First, the following entries will be added to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name registry to be located at iana.org/assignments/http-fields:

+===============+===========+======+==========+
| Field Name | Status | Ref. | Comments |
+===============+===========+======+==========+
| Age | standard | 5.1 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Cache-Control | standard | 5.2 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Expires | standard | 5.3 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Pragma | standard | 5.4 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Warning | obsoleted | 5.5 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+

Second, in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Cache Directive registry located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-directives

the following entries will be added:

+==================+==================================+
| Cache Directive | Reference |
+==================+==================================+
| max-age | Section 5.2.1.1, Section 5.2.2.1 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| max-stale | Section 5.2.1.2 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| min-fresh | Section 5.2.1.3 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| must-revalidate | Section 5.2.2.2 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| must-understand | Section 5.2.2.3 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| no-cache | Section 5.2.1.4, Section 5.2.2.4 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| no-store | Section 5.2.1.5, Section 5.2.2.5 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| no-transform | Section 5.2.1.6, Section 5.2.2.6 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| only-if-cached | Section 5.2.1.7 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| private | Section 5.2.2.7 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| proxy-revalidate | Section 5.2.2.8 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| public | Section 5.2.2.9 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| s-maxage | Section 5.2.2.10 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+

Third, in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Warn Codes registry at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-warn-codes

a note to the registry will be added that indicates that Warning is obsoleted. Upon approval of this document, IANA will work with the authors to create appropriate text for this note.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required by this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2021-08-24
18 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Henry Thompson
2021-08-24
18 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Henry Thompson
2021-08-23
18 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-09-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mt@lowentropy.net …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-09-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mt@lowentropy.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (HTTP Caching) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the HTTP WG (httpbis) to consider the
following document: - 'HTTP Caching'
  as Internet Standard

This second Last Call is specifically on the intended RFC status change, which
was incorrectly set to Proposed Standard on the previous Last Call.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on the intended RFC status change from Proposed Standard to
Internet Standard. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-09-06. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-
  level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information
  systems.  This document defines HTTP caches and the associated header
  fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response
  messages.

  This document obsoletes RFC 7234.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7405: Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))



2021-08-23
18 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini Last call was requested
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini Reverting back to the "IESG evaluation" datatracker state in order to start the second IETF Last Call to confirm intended RFC status "Internet Standard"
2021-08-23
18 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini Last call announcement was changed
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini Last call announcement was generated
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini Fixing intended RFC status (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/httpbisa/V0om3C8M-9vsS0761CktqBHK7VU/)
2021-08-23
18 Francesca Palombini Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from Proposed Standard
2021-08-18
18 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-18.txt
2021-08-18
18 (System) New version approved
2021-08-18
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding
2021-08-18
18 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2021-07-25
17 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2021-07-25
17 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-07-25
17 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-17.txt
2021-07-25
17 (System) New version approved
2021-07-25
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding
2021-07-25
17 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2021-06-17
16 (System) Changed action holders to Roy Fielding, Mark Nottingham, Julian Reschke (IESG state changed)
2021-06-17
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2021-06-17
16 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
[S4.3.1] [question]

* What does it mean to "validate a response that [the cache] cannot select
  with the request header fields it …
[Ballot comment]
[S4.3.1] [question]

* What does it mean to "validate a response that [the cache] cannot select
  with the request header fields it is sending"?
2021-06-17
16 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-06-16
16 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] Position for Murray Kucherawy has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2021-06-16
16 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-06-16
16 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
I made a PR with some editorial suggestions at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/pull/874 .

Section 1.3

  negative integer range.  If a cache receives a delta-seconds …
[Ballot comment]
I made a PR with some editorial suggestions at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/pull/874 .

Section 1.3

  negative integer range.  If a cache receives a delta-seconds value
  greater than the greatest integer it can represent, or if any of its
  subsequent calculations overflows, the cache MUST consider the value
  to be 2147483648 (2^31) or the greatest positive integer it can
  conveniently represent.

Is that a free choice, MIN, or MAX?

Section 3.1

  Caches MAY either store trailer fields separate from header fields,
  or discard them.  Caches MUST NOT combine trailer fields with header
  fields.

IIRC, recipients are allowed to merge trailer fields into header fields
in some situations (e.g., if explicitly allowed by the field
definition).  I'm not entirely sure how that allowance is intended to
interact with this directive (perhaps that generic-recipient merging has
already occurred before this point?).

Section 4

  A cache that does not have a clock available MUST NOT use stored
  responses without revalidating them upon every use.

(Are we using the same qualifications for what counts as a clock as
specified in §10.2.2 of -semantics?)

Section 5.2.2.2

  The "must-revalidate" response directive indicates that once the
  response has become stale, a cache MUST NOT reuse that response to
  satisfy another request until it has been successfully validated by
  the origin, as defined by Section 4.3.
[...]
  The must-revalidate directive also permits a shared cache to reuse a
  response to a request containing an Authorization header field
  (Section 11.6.2 of [Semantics]), subject to the above requirement on
  revalidation (Section 3.5).

It seems like the combination of these two behaviors would allow a
shared cache to reuse a response to a request containing an
Authorization header field without revalidation, provided it does so
before the response has become stale.  That seems surprising to me,
though it's hard to pin down exactly why.

NITS

Section 4.2.3

  A response's age can be calculated in two entirely independent ways:

Just to confirm: this is something that could be said to be the
"intrinsic age" or "initial age" of the response, corresponding to the
age at the time it was generated/received, as distinct from the age at
the time of the calculation?  I wonder if adding an adjective would help
clarify that.

Appendix B

  The "public" and "private" cache directives were clarified, so that
  they do not make responses reusable under any condition.
  (Section 5.2.2)

I'm having a hard time figuring out what change this refers to.
2021-06-16
16 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2021-06-16
16 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2021-06-16
16 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2021-06-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for efforts put for this document.

I have following comments/questions :

* I consider this as editorial fix hence not holding a …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for efforts put for this document.

I have following comments/questions :

* I consider this as editorial fix hence not holding a discuss but I would
like to see this addressed. This document uses terminologies defined in section
3 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16#section-3,
for example - user agent, client. However, it does not refer to the the
semantics doc. I think it must refer to the section 3 of semantic document.

* Section 1 :
        - Is impossible to add a reference  to HTTP in the intro?
        - it says -
            "A cache stores cacheable responses to reduce the response
  time and network bandwidth consumption on future equivalent requests.
  Any client or server MAY use a cache, though not when acting as a
  tunnel."
        I think the case "when action as a tunnel" need to be described here to help understanding the context better. The whole tunneling thing came without any prior discussion and the use case is not clearly stated in the entire document.

* Section 1.3:  this "canned string" can be made more verbose to increase the understanding of the note.

* Section 5.2.3: it felt like the readers are expected to know about "cache extension token", that might not always be the case hence please define it or describe it inline in the section.
2021-06-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot comment text updated for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2021-06-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for efforts put for this document.

I have following comments/questions :

* I consider this as editorial fix hence not holding a …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for efforts put for this document.

I have following comments/questions :

* I consider this as editorial fix hence not holding a discuss but I would
like to see this addressed. This document uses terminologies defined in section
3 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16#section-3,
for example - user agent, client. However, it does not refer to the the
semantics doc. I think it must refer to the section 3 of semantic document.

* Section 1 :
        - Is impossible to add a reference  to HTTP in the intro?
        - it says -
            "A cache stores cacheable responses to reduce the response
  time and network bandwidth consumption on future equivalent requests.
  Any client or server MAY use a cache, though not when acting as a
  tunnel."
        I think the case "when action as a tunnel" need to be described here to help understanding the context better. The whole tunneling this came without any prior discussion and the use case is not clearly stated in the entire document.

* Section 1.3:  this "canned string" can be made more verbose to increase the understanding of the note.

* Section 5.2.3: it felt like the readers are expected to know about "cache extension token", that might not always be the case hence please define it or describe it inline in the section.
2021-06-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2021-06-14
16 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2021-06-14
16 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-06-14
16 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2021-06-14
16 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
[Fixing ballot position.]

Thanks for this document.

Not surprisingly, I don't have many comments on this.

A couple of nits for you to …
[Ballot comment]
[Fixing ballot position.]

Thanks for this document.

Not surprisingly, I don't have many comments on this.

A couple of nits for you to take/leave at your discretion:

  This enables caches to _collapse requests_ -
  or combine multiple incoming requests into a single forward one upon
  a cache miss - thereby reducing load on the origin server and
  network.
 
It wasn't entirely obvious to me what was meant by "single forward one", perhaps this could be clarified.

    4.1.  Calculating Cache Keys with Vary

The section title looks incomplete, possible something like "with Vary header field" would read better.

Regards,
Rob
2021-06-14
16 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Wilton has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2021-06-14
16 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

Not surprisingly, I don't have many comments on this.

A couple of nits for you to take/leave at your …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

Not surprisingly, I don't have many comments on this.

A couple of nits for you to take/leave at your discretion:

  This enables caches to _collapse requests_ -
  or combine multiple incoming requests into a single forward one upon
  a cache miss - thereby reducing load on the origin server and
  network.
 
It wasn't entirely obvious to me what was meant by "single forward one", perhaps this could be clarified.

    4.1.  Calculating Cache Keys with Vary

The section title looks incomplete, possible something like "with Vary header field" would read better.

Regards,
Rob
2021-06-14
16 Robert Wilton Ballot comment text updated for Robert Wilton
2021-06-11
16 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 3. , paragraph 2, comment:
>    A cache MUST NOT store a response to a request unless:

Unless all of these …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3. , paragraph 2, comment:
>    A cache MUST NOT store a response to a request unless:

Unless all of these are true or any of these are true? I guess the former.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 2. , paragraph 2, nit:
>    Proper cache operation preserves the semantics of HTTP transfers
>    ([Semantics]) while reducing the transmission of information already

It's unusual to put a reference (also) in parentheses; suggest removing the
parentheses here and checking similar occurrences throughout the document.

Section 1. , paragraph 5, nit:
-    HTTP caching's goal is significantly improving performance by reusing
-                -------
+    The goal of HTTP caching is significantly improving performance by reusing
+  ++++++++++++

Section 1.3. , paragraph 5, nit:
>  uses to select a response and is comprised of, at a minimum, the request met
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you mean "comprises" or "consists of" or "is composed of"?

Section 9.1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> ferring to RFC 723x. * Remove acknowledgements specific to RFC 723x. * Move
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("acknowledgement" and "acknowledgment")
within a single text.

Section 9.1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> pecific to RFC 723x. * Move "Acknowledgements" to the very end and make them
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("acknowledgement" and "acknowledgment")
within a single text.

These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which is being deprecated:
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-16
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16
2021-06-11
16 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2021-06-10
16 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Derek Atkins for the SECDIR review.

** Section 7.  It would be worth mentioning that user-agents that have interactive human users …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Derek Atkins for the SECDIR review.

** Section 7.  It would be worth mentioning that user-agents that have interactive human users such as browsers should provide a means to explicitly purge the contents local cache.

** Section 7.  Per “Caches expose additional potential vulnerabilities, since the contents of the cache represent an attractive target for malicious exploitation”, do you mean “expose an additional attack surface” (rather than “potential vulnerability”)?

** Section 7.1.  Per “Various attacks might be amplified by being stored in a cache”, this text is vague.  Is there a specific amplification tied to given attack being suggested here, or is this meant to suggest that the presence of a malicious payload in a cache seeded by an attacker could reach multiple users?

** Section 7.2.  Recommend being clearer on the threat rather than the attack vector (“timing attack”):

OLD
This is sometimes called "double keying."

NEW
This is sometimes called "double keying” and provides isolation between cross-origin content.
2021-06-10
16 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-06-10
16 Francesca Palombini Ballot has been issued
2021-06-10
16 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2021-06-10
16 Francesca Palombini Created "Approve" ballot
2021-06-10
16 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2021-06-10
16 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2021-06-08
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2021-06-08
16 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the three actions required by this document. Please see below.

Also, IANA understands that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval and completion of IANA Actions in another document:

draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics

First, the following entries will be added to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name registry to be located at iana.org/assignments/http-fields:

+===============+===========+======+==========+
| Field Name | Status | Ref. | Comments |
+===============+===========+======+==========+
| Age | standard | 5.1 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Cache-Control | standard | 5.2 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Expires | standard | 5.3 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Pragma | standard | 5.4 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+
| Warning | obsoleted | 5.5 | |
+---------------+-----------+------+----------+

NOTE: In its review of draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics, IANA will ask that the word "Registry" be left out of the name of the new registry. We will also request that the document be updated to indicate that the URL does not yet exist (which is made clear in this document).

Second, in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Cache Directive registry located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-directives

the following entries will be added:

+==================+==================================+
| Cache Directive | Reference |
+==================+==================================+
| max-age | Section 5.2.1.1, Section 5.2.2.1 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| max-stale | Section 5.2.1.2 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| min-fresh | Section 5.2.1.3 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| must-revalidate | Section 5.2.2.2 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| must-understand | Section 5.2.2.3 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| no-cache | Section 5.2.1.4, Section 5.2.2.4 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| no-store | Section 5.2.1.5, Section 5.2.2.5 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| no-transform | Section 5.2.1.6, Section 5.2.2.6 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| only-if-cached | Section 5.2.1.7 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| private | Section 5.2.2.7 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| proxy-revalidate | Section 5.2.2.8 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| public | Section 5.2.2.9 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+
| s-maxage | Section 5.2.2.10 |
+------------------+----------------------------------+

Third, in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Warn Codes registry at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-warn-codes

a note to the registry will be added that indicates that Warning is obsoleted. Upon approval of this document, IANA will work with the authors to create appropriate text for this note.

QUESTION: Is the intention of this note to indicate that entries in the Warn Codes registry should be considered obsolete? If so, typically a document will ask us to add "(OBSOLETE)" (or similar) to the registration's description field rather than add a note to the top of the registry.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required by this document.

Note:  The actions will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2021-06-06
16 Al Morton Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Al Morton. Sent review to list.
2021-06-03
16 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton
2021-06-03
16 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton
2021-05-30
16 Mohit Sethi Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Mohit Sethi. Sent review to list.
2021-05-28
16 Derek Atkins Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. Sent review to list.
2021-05-27
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Mohit Sethi
2021-05-27
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Mohit Sethi
2021-05-27
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2021-05-27
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2021-05-27
16 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-06-17
2021-05-27
16 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2021-05-27
16 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-06-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mt@lowentropy.net …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-06-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mt@lowentropy.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (HTTP Caching) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the HTTP WG (httpbis) to consider the
following document: - 'HTTP Caching'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-06-10. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-
  level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information
  systems.  This document defines HTTP caches and the associated header
  fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response
  messages.

  This document obsoletes RFC 7234.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2021-05-27
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2021-05-27
16 Francesca Palombini Last call was requested
2021-05-27
16 Francesca Palombini Last call announcement was generated
2021-05-27
16 Francesca Palombini Ballot approval text was generated
2021-05-27
16 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2021-05-27
16 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-05-27
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-05-27
16 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16.txt
2021-05-27
16 (System) New version approved
2021-05-27
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding
2021-05-27
16 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2021-05-26
15 (System) Changed action holders to Roy Fielding, Mark Nottingham, Julian Reschke, Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2021-05-26
15 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-04-18
15 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2021-04-18
15 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-04-18
15 Francesca Palombini Ballot writeup was changed
2021-04-13
15 Tommy Pauly
# Publication Request Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-cache

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is …
# Publication Request Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-cache

(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?

This document is intended for the standards track.  As a revision to a
standards-track document (RFC 7234), this is appropriate.

Full Standard is probably an appropriate target status for the document.  If
any set of documents is ready for that status, then HTTP qualifies.

(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:

Technical Summary:

This document defines HTTP caches and the associated header fields that
control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages.

Working Group Summary:

This document was primarily driven by the editors.  A non-trivial amount of
work was involved in updating and refining documents (RFC 723x) that were
already in a good state.  Working group engagement was good, though lighter
for this document than others.

Document Quality:

This is a very widely implemented protocol.

As this is a revision, with only minor changes, the usual review procedures do
no apply to the document.

The main improvements here are to validate aspects of the protocol
  documentation based on what has been deployed.  Changes are largely the
result of extensive testing (see https://cache-tests.fyi/ for details), which
validated many unchanged portions and justified the small number of changes
that were included.

Personnel:

Martin Thomson is shepherd; Francesca Palombini is area director.

(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.

The document is clean in idnits and validates according to the rigorous build
processes used by the editors.  This includes abnf validation for the formal
language in the document, plus the examples.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Reviews seem adequate.  Note that additional review of these documents was
necessary as a part of developing HTTP/3.

(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.

No additional review seems necessary.

(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.

No specific concerns.

(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?

Yes, the authors have confirmed that they are in compliance.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Datatracker doesn't list any disclosures on this or its predecessor.

(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?

The working group has engaged well.

(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 drama to report.

(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.

idnits complains about things that are non-issues.  I have reviewed the
document, but have not followed the checklist closely (that page has broken
formatting and is clearly out of date).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Those reviews should have passed for its predecessor.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

I have carefully reviewed this and the references are correct.

(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?

This is part of a small cluster of three documents advancing simultaneously.
No other normative references to in-progress work are made.

(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.

No downrefs.

(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.

This updates RFC 7234 and that is in header, abstract, and introduction
according to established standards.

(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 IANA considerations are clear and accurate.

(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.

No new registries have been created.

(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.

If this question were able to be removed from this template, it would be good.
Any document that isn't automating these checks as part of its production
shouldn't get to the point of requesting publication.

All the relevant checks on this document have been automated.

(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?

YANG!
2021-04-13
15 Tommy Pauly Responsible AD changed to Francesca Palombini
2021-04-13
15 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-04-13
15 Tommy Pauly IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-04-13
15 Tommy Pauly IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-04-13
15 Tommy Pauly Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2021-04-05
15 Martin Thomson
# Publication Request Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-cache

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is …
# Publication Request Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-cache

(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?

This document is intended for the standards track.  As a revision to a
standards-track document (RFC 7234), this is appropriate.

Full Standard is probably an appropriate target status for the document.  If
any set of documents is ready for that status, then HTTP qualifies.

(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:

Technical Summary:

This document defines HTTP caches and the associated header fields that
control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages.

Working Group Summary:

This document was primarily driven by the editors.  A non-trivial amount of
work was involved in updating and refining documents (RFC 723x) that were
already in a good state.  Working group engagement was good, though lighter
for this document than others.

Document Quality:

This is a very widely implemented protocol.

As this is a revision, with only minor changes, the usual review procedures do
no apply to the document.

The main improvements here are to validate aspects of the protocol
  documentation based on what has been deployed.  Changes are largely the
result of extensive testing (see https://cache-tests.fyi/ for details), which
validated many unchanged portions and justified the small number of changes
that were included.

Personnel:

Martin Thomson is shepherd; Francesca Palombini is area director.

(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.

The document is clean in idnits and validates according to the rigorous build
processes used by the editors.  This includes abnf validation for the formal
language in the document, plus the examples.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Reviews seem adequate.  Note that additional review of these documents was
necessary as a part of developing HTTP/3.

(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.

No additional review seems necessary.

(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.

No specific concerns.

(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?

Yes, the authors have confirmed that they are in compliance.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Datatracker doesn't list any disclosures on this or its predecessor.

(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?

The working group has engaged well.

(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 drama to report.

(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.

idnits complains about things that are non-issues.  I have reviewed the
document, but have not followed the checklist closely (that page has broken
formatting and is clearly out of date).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Those reviews should have passed for its predecessor.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

I have carefully reviewed this and the references are correct.

(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?

This is part of a small cluster of three documents advancing simultaneously.
No other normative references to in-progress work are made.

(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.

No downrefs.

(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.

This updates RFC 7234 and that is in header, abstract, and introduction
according to established standards.

(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 IANA considerations are clear and accurate.

(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.

No new registries have been created.

(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.

If this question were able to be removed from this template, it would be good.
Any document that isn't automating these checks as part of its production
shouldn't get to the point of requesting publication.

All the relevant checks on this document have been automated.

(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?

YANG!
2021-04-02
15 Tommy Pauly Notification list changed to mt@lowentropy.net because the document shepherd was set
2021-04-02
15 Tommy Pauly Document shepherd changed to Martin Thomson
2021-04-02
15 Tommy Pauly Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-04-02
15 Tommy Pauly Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-03-30
15 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-15.txt
2021-03-30
15 (System) New version approved
2021-03-30
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding
2021-03-30
15 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2021-02-12
14 Tommy Pauly Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2021-02-12
14 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-01-14
14 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-01-12
14 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-14.txt
2021-01-12
14 (System) New version approved
2021-01-12
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding
2021-01-12
14 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2020-12-14
13 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-13.txt
2020-12-14
13 (System) New version approved
2020-12-14
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding
2020-12-14
13 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2020-10-02
12 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-12.txt
2020-10-02
12 (System) New version approved
2020-10-02
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke
2020-10-02
12 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2020-08-27
11 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-11.txt
2020-08-27
11 (System) New version approved
2020-08-27
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham , Julian Reschke , Roy Fielding
2020-08-27
11 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2020-07-12
10 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-10.txt
2020-07-12
10 (System) New version approved
2020-07-12
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Julian Reschke , Roy Fielding , Mark Nottingham
2020-07-12
10 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2020-07-11
09 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-09.txt
2020-07-11
09 (System) New version approved
2020-07-11
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham , Julian Reschke , Roy Fielding
2020-07-11
09 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2020-05-26
08 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-08.txt
2020-05-26
08 (System) New version approved
2020-05-26
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham , Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke
2020-05-26
08 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2020-03-07
07 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-07.txt
2020-03-07
07 (System) New version approved
2020-03-07
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham , Julian Reschke , Roy Fielding
2020-03-07
07 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
06 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-06.txt
2019-11-04
06 (System) New version approved
2019-11-04
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham
2019-11-04
06 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2019-07-08
05 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-05.txt
2019-07-08
05 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham
2019-07-08
05 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2019-03-09
04 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-04.txt
2019-03-09
04 (System) New version approved
2019-03-09
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham
2019-03-09
04 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2018-10-18
03 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-03.txt
2018-10-18
03 (System) New version approved
2018-10-18
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham
2018-10-18
03 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2018-07-02
02 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-02.txt
2018-07-02
02 (System) New version approved
2018-07-02
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham
2018-07-02
02 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2018-05-31
01 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-01.txt
2018-05-31
01 (System) New version approved
2018-05-31
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roy Fielding , Julian Reschke , Mark Nottingham
2018-05-31
01 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision
2018-05-30
00 Mark Nottingham This document now replaces draft-fielding-httpbis-http-cache instead of None
2018-04-03
00 Julian Reschke New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-00.txt
2018-04-03
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-04-03
00 Julian Reschke Set submitter to ""Julian F. Reschke" ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org
2018-04-03
00 Julian Reschke Uploaded new revision