search

httpwg / httpbis-issues

1 stars 1 forks source link

Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25 #524

Closed mnot closed 3 years ago

mnot commented 10 years ago

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.

-As mentioned in p4 review, was it considered merging p4 and p6? - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~~ -[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... " - see 2504

-[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" - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

-[Page 19], "update the stored response a described below;"--typo-->"update the stored response as described below; - see 2503

-[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." - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

-[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? -http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

Reported by julian.reschke@gmx.de, migrated from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/524

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de commented:

From 2503:

typo (see #524)

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

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

to:

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; - see 2503

-[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

mnot commented 10 years ago

@mnot commented:

From 2504:

remove 'requirements' from p6 abstract; see #524

mnot commented 10 years ago

@mnot changed description from:

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; - see 2503

-[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

to:

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... " - see 2504

-[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; - see 2503

-[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

mnot commented 10 years ago
mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de commented:

see also reply in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html - I believe we can close this issue

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

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... " - see 2504

-[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; - see 2503

-[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

to:

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.

-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... " - see 2504

-[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; - see 2503

-[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?

mnot commented 10 years ago

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.

-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... " - see 2504

-[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; - see 2503

-[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?

to:

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.

-As mentioned in p4 review, was it considered merging p4 and p6? - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

~~ -[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... " - see 2504

-[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" - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

-[Page 19], "update the stored response a described below;"--typo-->"update the stored response as described below; - see 2503

-[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." - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html

-[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? -http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1663.html