Hi Mark, I removed the quotes from "grouping” and “cascade”. Sorry about that! I misunderstood your reply to that question.
Are any additional updates needed? Here are the updated files: 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 21, 2025, at 2:08 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
