Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25
review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-12-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-12-17
Requested 2013-10-21
Authors Roy T. Fielding , Mark Nottingham , Julian Reschke
I-D last updated 2013-12-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -25 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Early review of -?? by Tero Kivinen
Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -25 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 25 (document currently at 26)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2013-12-03
review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-12-03-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

  .



Please resolve any Last Call comments you may receive.







Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2013-11-18/2013-12-02

IETF LC End Date: End of November (special deadline)

IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19





Summary:

This draft is almost ready to be published as Proposed Standard but I have some
comments.





Major issues:

none





Minor issues:

none





Nits/editorial comments:

Part 6 of:

draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging (82 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics (98 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional (27 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range (24 pages)

*draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache (41 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (18 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (7 pages)

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (5 pages)



-As mentioned in p4 review, was it considered merging p4 and p6?



-[Page 1], abstract, Suggestion to change the sentence to remove the word
"requirements" to avoid confusion with a Requirements RFC (which is usually
followed by the spec).

"This document defines requirements on HTTP caches... "



-[Page 12], last paragraph, suggestion to use SHOULD  or MUST



"heuristics can only be used on responses without explicit freshness"----->

"heuristics SHOULD/MUST only be used on responses without explicit freshness"



-[Page 19], "update the stored response a described below;"--typo-->"update the
stored response as described below;



-[Page 22], does is matter if it is strong versus weak validation?

"

5.2.1.4.  no-cache



   The "no-cache" request directive indicates that a cache MUST NOT use

   a stored response to satisfy the request without successful

   validation on the origin server.

"

-[Page 34], Security section, as mentioned in my other reviews, would it be
better to have a separate draft to discuss all security issues related to HTTP?







Best Regards,

Meral



---

Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson Research

www.ericsson.com