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

Re: Via MUST discussion

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:27:00 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1195093620.30372.100.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
On ons, 2007-11-14 at 14:29 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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...

Yes, it's two separate issues, even if the solution is mutually
exclusive in terms of text change relateive to 2616.

Regards
Henrik


Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 02:27:36 GMT

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