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

Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:54:11 -0700
Message-Id: <3CEF69E6-21F1-4DD2-B80C-F00578A472E5@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Mar 11, 2008, at 1:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> My understanding is that a proposal along these lines* is  
>> acceptable, with one exception; Julian believes that if we do  
>> this, we should also relax the client-side requirement.
>
> Yes.
>
>> One way to do that would be to change "SHOULD"->"should" (i.e.,  
>> make it advisory text, instead of a requirement).
>> Thoughts?
>> ...
>
> I don't think that lowercasing the requirement is sufficient; it's  
> still a requirement. My proposal is to get rid of it, so to drop:
>
> "However, the indications given by the Allow header field value  
> SHOULD be followed."
>
> completely.

+1

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 17:54:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT