Nope, that's good - thanks! Approved.
> On 22 Oct 2025, at 8:31 am, Rebecca VanRheenen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/ >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
