That one should remain lowercase. Cheers,
> On 22 Oct 2025, at 5:02 am, Rebecca VanRheenen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the reply! We updated the document accordingly. > > We have one more question. We updated the “string” to “String” in Section 2 > per your reply, but a lowercase instance of “strings” still appears in the > abstract. Would you like to capitalize that instance, or should it remain > lowercase? > > Current: > 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. > > > — FILES (please refresh) — > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875.html > > Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9875-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9875 > > Thank you, > > Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > >> On Oct 20, 2025, at 8:56 PM, Mark Nottingham >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Responses below. Could you please change the city in my address from Prahran >> to Melbourne, and change my organisation to Cloudflare? >> >> >>> On 30 Sep 2025, at 12:41 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). >>> --> >> >> The latter please. >> >>> 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"? >> >> Yes. >> >>> 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? >> >> Yes please. >> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> Yes, "please." >> >>> 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 >>> --> >> >> In "The Cache-Groups Response Header Field", change "list" to "Each member >> of the List is a value that identifies a group that the response belongs >> to." Likewise in "The Cache-Group-Invalidation Response Header Field". >> >> In "The Cache-Groups Response Header Field", change "strings" to "These >> Strings are opaque". >> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> Noted. >> >> As always, thank you so much! >> >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
