search

httpwg / httpbis-issues

1 stars 1 forks source link

OPS-dir review of p6-cache #543

Closed mnot closed 3 years ago

mnot commented 10 years ago

Lionel Morand:

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.

Reported by @mnot, migrated from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/543

mnot commented 10 years ago
mnot commented 10 years ago

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.

to:

Lionel Morand:

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.

mnot commented 10 years ago

See #535