W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: security requirements (was: Updating RFC 2617 (HTTP Digest) to use UTF-8)

From: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:58:36 -0800
Message-ID: <76323E9F0A911944A4E9225FACFC55BA02B09694@WIN-MSG-20.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
CC: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>



-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Robert Sayre


At any rate, I believe other messages have established that the
meaning of the HTTP version number field is pretty clear. I think the
list should revisit this topic when everyone is prepared to accept the
requirements of RFC 2616 and RFC 2145. Is there something unclear
about "conditional conformance"?
[Paul Leach] Do you mean "conditional compliance"? As in 2616:

1.2 Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [34].

   An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
   of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it
   implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED
   level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said
   to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST
   level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements for its
   protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 06:58:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT