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 rev. 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
Other Reviews Secdir Early review of - by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -25 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
Review review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-12-03
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg09377.html
Reviewed rev. 25 (document currently at 26)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2013-12-03
Review completed: 2013-12-03

Review
review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-12-03






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