W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: HTTP/1.1 + Digest

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:41:55 PDT
To: dwm@shell.portal.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Aug27.154155pdt."2733"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1491
Writing MUST instead of SHOULD in the specification is not any way to
force some vendor to either implement or not implement something. The
spec should say what makes sense, not what is politically
expedient. We should write "MUST" if non-compliance causes systems to

I think there are too many "MUST"s in HTTP/1.1, but agreed to wait
until the review for "Proposed" -> "Draft" to review them. I don't see
any reason to add one here, though.

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 1996 15:43:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:18 UTC