Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching
draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-26
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-05-29
|
26 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-05-15
|
26 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-04-16
|
26 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2014-04-14
|
26 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2014-02-18
|
26 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-02-17
|
26 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-02-17
|
26 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-02-14
|
26 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-02-12
|
26 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-02-12
|
26 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-02-12
|
26 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-02-12
|
26 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-02-12
|
26 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-02-12
|
26 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-12
|
26 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-12
|
26 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-02-06
|
26 | Julian Reschke | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-02-06
|
26 | Julian Reschke | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-26.txt |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Lionel Morand. |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] *) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If … [Ballot comment] *) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. 0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description. 1) What Stephen said about cache poising. |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Please see Lionel's OPS-DIR review, and please engage in the discussion: #1: Section 1.2.1. Delta Seconds "A recipient parsing a delta-seconds value … [Ballot comment] Please see Lionel's OPS-DIR review, and please engage in the discussion: #1: Section 1.2.1. Delta Seconds "A recipient parsing a delta-seconds value and converting it to binary form ought to use an arithmetic type of at least 31 bits of non- negative integer range." How should the "ought to" above be interpreted? If it is a recommendation, "SHOULD" is maybe more appropriate. #2: section 4.3.1. Sending a Validation Request No normative wording is used in this section, especially there is no "MUST" and "MUST NOT". It seems therefore that this part is only for information and provides some guidelines for sending validation requests. Is it really the intention here? #3: section 5.2. Cache-Control "For the directives defined below that define arguments, recipients ought to accept both forms, even if one is documented to be preferred. For any directive not defined by this specification, a recipient MUST accept both forms." "MUST" seems more appropriate than "ought to" in the first sentence above. As I understand the rest of the document, a recommendation can be given in the form to use for a given directive (when applicable) but it is expected that both forms will be always accepted by the cache. As a consequence,it does not seem so relevant to make the difference between directives defined in this document and in other documents. #4: section 5.5. Warning It could be clarified that Warn-text are only intended to be human readable or to be logged and should not affect the interpretation of the warn-code. |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-12-19
|
25 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-12-18
|
25 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-18
|
25 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot comment] COMMENT 1: In Section 1, a minor suggestion: OLD: "A private cache, in contrast, is dedicated to a single user." NEW: "A private … [Ballot comment] COMMENT 1: In Section 1, a minor suggestion: OLD: "A private cache, in contrast, is dedicated to a single user." NEW: "A private cache, in contrast, is dedicated to a single user, for instance as a component of a user agent." COMMENT 2: In Section 3, you use "cache directive", "cache response directive", and "response cache directive". Choose one. |
2013-12-18
|
25 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-12-18
|
25 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-12-18
|
25 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - section 8: It would be very useful to add some references where cache poisoning and how to handle it are explained in … [Ballot comment] - section 8: It would be very useful to add some references where cache poisoning and how to handle it are explained in more detail. |
2013-12-18
|
25 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-12-17
|
25 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-12-17
|
25 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-12-16
|
25 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-12-16
|
25 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-12-16
|
25 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-12-09
|
25 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
2013-12-09
|
25 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
2013-12-09
|
25 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Telechat review by OPSDIR to Mehmet Ersue was rejected |
2013-12-03
|
25 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2013-11-17
|
25 | Julian Reschke | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-11-17
|
25 | Julian Reschke | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25.txt |
2013-11-15
|
24 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
2013-11-15
|
24 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
2013-11-11
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2013-11-11
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2013-11-11
|
24 | Pearl Liang | acker. IANA Actions - YES NOTE: The authors have confirmed that all new requested registries are new top-level registries. The new URL will be: http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-directives … acker. IANA Actions - YES NOTE: The authors have confirmed that all new requested registries are new top-level registries. The new URL will be: http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-directives http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-warn-codes Thank you, Pearl Liang ICANN/IANA On Tue Nov 05 08:58:41 2013, iesg-secretary@ietf.org wrote: > Evaluation for can be found at > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache/ > > Last call to expire on: 2013-11-04 00:00 > > > Please return the full line with your position. > > Yes No-Objection Discuss Abstain > Barry Leiba [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] > > > "Yes" or "No-Objection" positions from 2/3 of non-recused ADs, > with no "Discuss" positions, are needed for approval. > > DISCUSSES AND COMMENTS > =========== > ? > ---- following is a DRAFT of message to be sent AFTER approval --- > From: The IESG > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: RFC Editor , > httpbis mailing list , > httpbis chair > Subject: Protocol Action: 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): > Caching' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24.txt) > > The IESG has approved the following document: > - 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching' > (draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24.txt) as Proposed Standard > > This document is the product of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis > Working Group. > > The IESG contact persons are Barry Leiba and Pete Resnick. > > A URL of this Internet Draft is: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache/ > > > > > Technical Summary > > This document specifies the caching semantics of HTTP messages > and the conformance criteria for HTTP caches. The document > seeks Proposed Standard status as it attempts to obsolete (along with > the other draft-ietf-httpbis drafts) a previous standards track > document > (RFC2616) and was developed under the compatibility constraints of the > working group charter. > > Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed > together: > > * draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging > * draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics > * draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional > * draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range > * draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache > * draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth > * draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations > * draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations > > > Review and Consensus > > Many of the experts in HTTP caching, representing some of the most > widely used implementations, were active participants in the working > group. Most of the discussions involved this core group of people, > with > additional reviews and contributions by other experienced > practitioners > and developers. > > Discussion was relatively moderate, with the number of issues raised > being in the middle of the pack of the set of httpbis documents. The > participants in the discussions tended to be the same core of caching > experts, though with other experts in related topics, or those with > valuable experience to share, commonly contributing. External reviews > were not abundant, but due to the highly specific skill set required > for > a full review, and the fact that many of the people in industry with > that skill set were participants in the working group, this shouldn't > be > considered either surprising or a problem. > > Only a small proportion of the issues required a prolonged discussion, > but in each case, consensus was reached through reasoned arguments > grounded in implementation experience using proposed text. I recall no > case where consensus could even be considered "rough", as discussions > were held back not primarily by strong disagreement, but by factors > such > as detailed wordsmithing of complex descriptions, or a lack of > information with which a decision could be made (commonly, information > about deployed implementation behaviour, or some aspect of the history > of the protocol's development which needed to be unearthed). Issue > 486[1] is a recent example of how some of the more complex discussions > went. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http- > wg/2013JulSep/thread.html#msg1040 > > > Personnel > > Document Shepherd: Mark Baker > Responsible Area Director: Barry Leiba > > > RFC Editor Note > > Please update the reference to RFC1305 to point instead to RFC5905 > > |
2013-11-05
|
24 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
2013-11-05
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2013-11-05
|
24 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-11-05
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-11-05
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-12-19 |
2013-11-05
|
24 | Barry Leiba | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-11-05
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-11-04
|
24 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2013-11-04) |
2013-10-31
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-31
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-31
|
24 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete. The third action must be approved by the designated expert for Permanent Message Header Field Names. First, a new registry called the HTTP Cache Directive Registry will be created at http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-directives The registration rule for this name space is IETF Review as defined in RFC 5226. Each registration is made up of a cache directive name and a reference. There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows: +------------------------+----------------------------------+ | Cache Directive | Reference | +------------------------+----------------------------------+ | max-age | [ RFC-to-be ] | | max-stale | [ RFC-to-be ] | | min-fresh | [ RFC-to-be ] | | must-revalidate | [ RFC-to-be ] | | no-cache | [ RFC-to-be ] | | no-store | [ RFC-to-be ] | | no-transform | [ RFC-to-be ] | | only-if-cached | [ RFC-to-be ] | | private | [ RFC-to-be ] | | proxy-revalidate | [ RFC-to-be ] | | public | [ RFC-to-be ] | | s-maxage | [ RFC-to-be ] | | stale-if-error | [RFC5861] | | stale-while-revalidate | [RFC5861] | +------------------------+----------------------------------+ Second, a new registry called the HTTP Warn Code Registry will be created at http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-warn-codes The registration rule for this name space is IETF Review as defined in RFC 5226. Each registration is made up of a three-digit warn code, a short description and a reference. These are the initial registrations: +-----------+----------------------------------+---------------+ | Warn Code | Short Description | Reference | +-----------+----------------------------------+---------------+ | 110 | Response is Stale | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 111 | Revalidation Failed | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 112 | Disconnected Operation | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 113 | Heuristic Expiration | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 199 | Miscellaneous Warning | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 214 | Transformation Applied | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 299 | Miscellaneous Persistent Warning | [ RFC-to-be ] | +-----------+----------------------------------+---------------+ Third, in the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry in the Message Headers page at http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/ the following message headers will be updated to reflect the new information provided below: +-------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ | Header Field Name | Protocol | Status | Reference | +-------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ | Age | http | standard |[ RFC-to-be ]| | Cache-Control | http | standard |[ RFC-to-be ]| | Expires | http | standard |[ RFC-to-be ]| | Pragma | http | standard |[ RFC-to-be ]| | Warning | http | standard |[ RFC-to-be ]| +-------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ IANA understands that these actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2013-10-24
|
24 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2013-10-24
|
24 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2013-10-24
|
24 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2013-10-24
|
24 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG (httpbis) to consider the following document: - 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document defines requirements on HTTP caches and the associated header fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages. Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed together: * draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging * draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics * draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional * draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range * draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache * draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth * draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations * draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations In addition, the obsolete reference to RFC 1305 will be updated to point to RFC 5905. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache/ Once IESG evaluation begins, IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-10-21
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-19
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-10-19
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-19
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-10-18
|
24 | Barry Leiba | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-10-07
|
24 | Cindy Morgan | [ Note that this report uses the alternate template as requested by the AD http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/ DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate ] 1. Summary Mark Baker is the document shepherd. … [ Note that this report uses the alternate template as requested by the AD http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/ DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate ] 1. Summary Mark Baker is the document shepherd. Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director. draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache specifies the caching semantics of HTTP messages and the conformance criteria for HTTP caches. The document seeks Proposed Standard status as it attempts to obsolete (along with the other draft-ietf-httpbis drafts) a previous standards track document (RFC2616) and was developed under the compatibility constraints of the working group charter. 2. Review and Consensus Many of the experts in HTTP caching, representing some of the most widely used implementations, were active participants in the working group. Most of the discussions involved this core group of people, with additional reviews and contributions by other experienced practitioners and developers. Discussion was relatively moderate, with the number of issues raised being in the middle of the pack of the set of httpbis documents. The participants in the discussions tended to be the same core of caching experts, though with other experts in related topics, or those with valuable experience to share, commonly contributing. External reviews were not abundant, but due to the highly specific skill set required for a full review, and the fact that many of the people in industry with that skill set were participants in the working group, this shouldn't be considered either surprising or a problem. Only a small proportion of the issues required a prolonged discussion, but in each case, consensus was reached through reasoned arguments grounded in implementation experience using proposed text. I recall no case where consensus could even be considered "rough", as discussions were held back not primarily by strong disagreement, but by factors such as detailed wordsmithing of complex descriptions, or a lack of information with which a decision could be made (commonly, information about deployed implementation behaviour, or some aspect of the history of the protocol's development which needed to be unearthed). Issue 486 [1] is a recent example of how some of the more complex discussions went; [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/thread.html#msg1040 3. Intellectual Property Each editor has confirmed that they have no direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. 4. Other Points The document contains no normative downward references. The document creates a new IANA registry for cache directives, and requires that registration be done per "IETF Review" (RFC 5226 sec 4.1). The choice for this option was based on its similarity to other registries created by other httpbis documents and the potential for complex interactions and potential interference between other directives. No specific review of this registry was requested or performed prior to last call. The prose describing registration review does request that specific edge cases of new directives be documented, where the list of edge cases was derived from the group's recent experience in clarifying the meaning of many of the existing directives. A registry for warning codes is also created. It also uses "IETF Review" but for reasons of consistency and the ability to add section references. There are none of the same complexities with new warning codes as there are with cache directives so no review considerations are provided. No specific review of this registry was requested prior to last call. The document populates both of its own registries with some existing terms using internal references, but also updates the HTTP header field registry for its five headers, with updated references from this document. |
2013-10-07
|
24 | Mark Nottingham | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-07
|
24 | Mark Nottingham | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-07
|
24 | Mark Nottingham | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-10-07
|
24 | Mark Nottingham | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-10-07
|
24 | Mark Baker | Changed document writeup |
2013-09-25
|
24 | Julian Reschke | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24.txt |
2013-09-15
|
23 | Mark Nottingham | Document shepherd changed to Mark A. Baker |
2013-07-15
|
23 | Julian Reschke | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-23.txt |
2013-02-23
|
22 | Julian Reschke | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22.txt |
2012-10-04
|
21 | Julian Reschke | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-21.txt |
2012-09-05
|
20 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
2012-08-21
|
20 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2012-08-21
|
20 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2012-08-15
|
20 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Tom Yu was rejected |
2012-07-16
|
20 | Julian Reschke | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-20.txt |
2012-07-05
|
19 | Barry Leiba | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba from Peter Saint-Andre |
2012-03-20
|
19 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2012-03-20
|
19 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2012-03-12
|
19 | Roy Fielding | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19.txt |
2012-01-03
|
18 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18.txt |
2011-11-14
|
18 | Peter Saint-Andre | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Standard |
2011-10-31
|
17 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-17.txt |
2011-10-17
|
18 | Peter Saint-Andre | Draft added in state AD is watching |
2011-08-24
|
16 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-16.txt |
2011-07-11
|
15 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-15.txt |
2011-04-18
|
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-14.txt |
2011-03-14
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-13.txt |
2010-10-25
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-12.txt |
2010-08-04
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-11.txt |
2010-07-12
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-10.txt |
2010-03-08
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-09.txt |
2009-10-26
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-08.txt |
2009-07-13
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-07.txt |
2009-03-09
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06.txt |
2008-11-17
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-05.txt |
2008-08-29
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-04.txt |
2008-06-17
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-03.txt |
2008-02-25
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-02.txt |
2008-01-13
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01.txt |
2007-12-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-00.txt |