Hi, I still see the "scare quotes" in the authors version.
Cheers, > On 22 Oct 2025, at 7:01 am, Rebecca VanRheenen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the quick reply! All of our questions have now been addressed. > Please let us know if any further updates are needed or if you approve the > document in its current form. > > Best regards, > > Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Oct 21, 2025, at 12:13 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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/ >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
