W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: STATUS100 Re: Proposed resolution

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:30:01 PDT
Message-Id: <33D115B9.2040@parc.xerox.com>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3827
> I suppose one could start a pointless argument about whether the
> intention behind "potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting
> retransmissions)" applies to "limiting the transmission of
> unnecessary bytes over the network."  I'll leave this decision
> to the working group chair.  Larry, if you ask me to remove this
> SHOULD NOT, please say so.

My personal (not wg-chair) opinion is that we should avoid placing
any requirements we don't need to place. Limiting the transmission
of unnecessary bytes over the network is grounds for good implementation
advice, but not for a SHOULD NOT. There are a few cases where we've
placed requirements for reasons other than interoperability, so I don't
think it's a hard rule.

Officially, we can't make requirements that don't match experience;
in going from Proposed to Draft, we cannot have a "SHOULD NOT
do X" if we can't document two independent interoperable implementations
that don't do X; but I don't think that's an issue in this case.

Received on Saturday, 19 July 1997 12:34:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC