W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:58:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB7FB83.7050004@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15.10.2010 04:28, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 12.10.2010 18:38, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> "If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be
>>>> treated as in error by ignoring the message and closing the connection."
>>>
>>> SGTM.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>> ...
>>
>> I've made it say:
>>
>> "If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be treated as an error by discarding the message and closing the connection."
>>
>> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1031>)
>
> Is there a reason for this to be a SHOULD instead of a MUST? I know Adam already asked that, but I don't recall seeing an answer.

We can't simply break formerly-conforming implementations.

What's important is IMHO that the problem is explained, and that we 
advise implementations what do to. Which keyword we use is unlikely to 
have a big effect on what implementations will do in practice.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 07:01:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:29 GMT