W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 20:49:50 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <251E0A31-72EC-4776-9D7C-EC07001B5EC8@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Willy,

Again -- this is about Warn-codes, NOT status codes.

Cheers,


On 05/11/2011, at 6:28 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> My feeling is that if we're certain that we won't break any client by sending
> interim 110 responses before the final response, SHOULD is the right wording to
> use to promote the new feature. However if we fear that some clients don't
> expect an 1xx interim response, then maybe we should use a MAY. I think the
> risk is not null, because till now, the only really visible 1xx is 100 which
> is exposed only when the client asks for it. I would not be surprised that a
> number of crappy package update tools or AV update daemons do not implement
> interim responses at all.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 09:50:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT