Telechat Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25
review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-opsdir-telechat-morand-2013-12-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2013-12-17
Requested 2013-12-09
Draft last updated 2013-12-19
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 Lionel Morand
State Completed
Review review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-opsdir-telechat-morand-2013-12-19
Reviewed rev. 25 (document currently at 26)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2013-12-19

Review
review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-opsdir-telechat-morand-2013-12-19

Hi,

As a member of the Operations Directorate, I have been assigned to the review of the draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25.
This document updates HTTP/1.1 regarding HTTP caches handling.

This document is well-written and very clear. I have no key issue with this document, especially regarding Operations and Management considerations.

Please find below some questions/comments that may be ignored if not relevant. 

Regards,

Lionel

********

#1: Section 1.2.1. Delta Seconds

  "A recipient parsing a delta-seconds value and converting it to binary
   form ought to use an arithmetic type of at least 31 bits of non-
   negative integer range." 

How should the "ought to" above be interpreted? If it is a recommendation, "SHOULD" is maybe more appropriate.

#2: section 4.3.1. Sending a Validation Request

No normative wording is used in this section, especially there is no "MUST" and "MUST NOT". It seems therefore that this part is only for information and provides some guidelines for sending validation requests. Is it really the intention here?

#3: section 5.2. Cache-Control

  "For the directives defined below that define arguments, recipients ought
   to accept both forms, even if one is documented to be preferred. For any 
   directive not defined by this specification, a recipient MUST accept both
   forms."

"MUST" seems more appropriate than "ought to" in the first sentence above. As I understand the rest of the document, a recommendation can be given in the form to use for a given directive (when applicable) but it is expected that both forms will be always accepted by the cache. As a consequence,it does not seem so relevant to make the difference between directives defined in this document and in other documents.


#4: section 5.5. Warning

It could be clarified that Warn-text are only intended to be human readable or to be logged and should not affect the interpretation of the warn-code.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.