Skip to main content

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