Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-03
review-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-03-secdir-lc-leiba-2025-02-13-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-02-26 | |
| Requested | 2025-02-12 | |
| Authors | Mark Nottingham | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-02-13 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -03
by Barry Leiba
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Artart Last Call review of -03 by Marco Tiloca (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Barry Leiba |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/nELQVF1_wY1mP8yJyaawpAavkCE | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2025-02-13 |
review-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-03-secdir-lc-leiba-2025-02-13-00
A well-written, clear document; thanks. The only question that comes to mind is whether there might be an issue with, say, two web pages in the same organization written by different developers that might inadvertently use the same string for their cache-group name. Does this just represent a case of what’s described in section 5? Is it just obvious that those developers should be coordinating? Or does it really not matter? And one typo: Section 2.1 bullet two, “They both share” (not “The”).