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/
> 

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to