W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:39:21 -0800
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <03F50653-892A-4A82-9487-DBF2753DF769@mnot.net>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

Are you saying that s/MUST/SHOULD/ is adequate, or agreeing that  
splitting it into two requirements, making the second a SHOULD, is  
necessary?


On 05/02/2008, at 4:47 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:

>
> mån 2008-02-04 klockan 23:08 -0800 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>> My thinking was that it may be necessary to preserve the MUST on the
>> presence of the header (in case any software had been written to
>> depend upon its presence), but to loosen the implied requirement that
>> the list of headers be complete.
>
> SHOULD is more than sufficuent for a such requirement level.
>
> Regards
> Henrik


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 14:39:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:36 GMT