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

Re: Via MUST discussion

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:35:41 +1300
Message-ID: <473BB07D.7050102@qbik.com>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

understood.  Sorry I missed that in my original post.

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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
>
>   

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 02:35:05 GMT

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