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

Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:43:04 -0800
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <568C6973-0F89-4E3C-8BEA-612C6EA52720@gbiv.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Right. So, back to the questions above -- what is a HTTP proxy supposed to do in these situations? Should this specific requirement be relaxed?

Yes, that's what I said earlier -- it is a bug to say that the field-value
MUST be sent in a specific form when senders are not expected to rewrite
the field-value, and might actually be forbidden from doing so by other
requirements.  What it is supposed to say is that newly generated Date
field-values MUST be of the standard form.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 00:43:28 GMT

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