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