Hi Mark, This is another friendly reminder about this document. Please see the previous messages in this thread for the questions and the links to the edited files.
Thank you, Rebecca VanRheenen RFC Production Center > On Oct 6, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below and > your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. > > Thank you, > > Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > >> On Sep 29, 2025, at 7:41 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the source file. >> >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "it" refers to here? >> >> Original: >> In addition to sharing invalidation events, the relationships >> indicated by grouping can also be used by caches to optimise their >> operation; for example, it could be used to inform the operation of >> cache eviction algorithms. >> >> Perhaps: >> In addition to sharing invalidation events, the relationships >> indicated by grouping can also be used by caches to optimise their >> operation; for example, grouping could be used to inform the operation of >> cache eviction algorithms. >> >> Or: >> In addition to sharing invalidation events, the relationships >> indicated by grouping can also be used by caches to optimise their >> operation (e.g., to inform the operation of >> cache eviction algorithms). >> --> >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3.1 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] is titled "Integers". >> Was >> the text/reference below instead meant to point to Section 3.3.3, which is >> titled "Strings"? >> >> Also, may we update "Cache-Groups HTTP Response Header" in the first sentence >> to "Cache-Groups response header field" for consistency with other instances >> in the document? >> >> Original: >> The Cache-Groups HTTP Response Header is a List of Strings (Sections >> 3.1 and 3.3.1 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]). >> ... >> The Cache-Group-Invalidation response header field is a List of >> Strings (Sections 3.1 and 3.3.1 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]). >> >> Perhaps: >> The Cache-Groups response header field is a List of Strings (Sections >> 3.1 and 3.3.3 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]). >> ... >> The Cache-Group-Invalidation response header field is a List of >> Strings (Sections 3.1 and 3.3.3 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]). >> --> >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Are the quotation marks needed around "grouping" and >> "cascade" in >> these sentences? >> >> Original: >> This specification introduces a means of describing the relationships >> between stored responses in HTTP caches, "grouping" them by >> associating a stored response with one or more strings. >> ... >> Note that further grouped invalidations are not triggered by a >> grouped invalidation; i.e., this mechanism does not "cascade." >> >> Perhaps: >> This specification introduces a means of describing the relationships >> between stored responses in HTTP caches, grouping them by >> associating a stored response with one or more strings. >> ... >> Note that further grouped invalidations are not triggered by a >> grouped invalidation; i.e., this mechanism does not cascade. >> --> >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the >> text. Please review all instances and let us know if any updates are >> needed. >> >> list vs. List >> string vs. String >> --> >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online >> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. >> --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kaelin Foody and Rebecca VanRheenen >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> >> On Sep 29, 2025, at 10:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/09/29 >> >> RFC Author(s): >> -------------- >> >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >> >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >> >> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >> your approval. >> >> Planning your review >> --------------------- >> >> Please review the following aspects of your document: >> >> * RFC Editor questions >> >> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >> follows: >> >> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >> >> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >> >> * Changes submitted by coauthors >> >> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >> >> * Content >> >> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >> - contact information >> - references >> >> * Copyright notices and legends >> >> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >> >> * Semantic markup >> >> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >> >> * Formatted output >> >> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >> >> >> Submitting changes >> ------------------ >> >> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >> include: >> >> * your coauthors >> >> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >> >> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >> >> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list >> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >> list: >> >> * More info: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >> >> * The archive itself: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >> >> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and >> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >> >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >> >> An update to the provided XML file >> — OR — >> An explicit list of changes in this format >> >> Section # (or indicate Global) >> >> OLD: >> old text >> >> NEW: >> new text >> >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >> >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >> >> >> Approving for publication >> -------------------------- >> >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >> >> >> Files >> ----- >> >> The files are available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9875 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9875 (draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-07) >> >> Title : HTTP Cache Groups >> Author(s) : M. Nottingham >> WG Chair(s) : Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly >> Area Director(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
