W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: Via MUST discussion

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:29:27 +0100
Message-ID: <473AF837.8060800@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On ons, 2007-11-14 at 11:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> OTOH, making this requirement a SHOULD is probably closer to  
>> reflecting current practice, especially if we were to have some  
>> explanatory text about it.
> 
> +1
> 
> There is no reason to have MUST level requirements without any
> noticeable impact on the operations of the protocol. And Via is
> certainly in that category.

I would argue we should open a new issue for this one, i5 
(<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i5>) was about 
the inconsistency between SHOULD (14.38) and MUST (14.45). We fixed that 
IMHO correctly (using consistently the stronger requirement).

So if we want to relax the MUST level requirement, that should be 
treated separately...

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 13:29:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT