Skip to main content

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 revision No specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2013-12-17
Requested 2013-12-09
Authors Roy T. Fielding , Mark Nottingham , Julian Reschke
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 revision 25 (document currently at 26)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2013-12-19
review-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25-opsdir-telechat-morand-2013-12-19-00
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.