W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC #357: Authentication Exchanges

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:18:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE2D8EE.5040605@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-06-21 01:57, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 20/06/2012, at 9:31 PM, Yutaka OIWA wrote:
>> Dear Mark,
>> 2012/6/20 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:
>>> That's effectively where we are; note that there aren't any RFC2119 conformance requirements placed around this.
>> I prefer to be explicit that use of 403 is just a preference
>> and is not RFC2119 nor other "requirements".
>> "Ought-to" sounds to be louder than RECOMMENDED, as a natural language.
>> # correct me if I have an English problem.
> We've consistently used "ought to" to give advice and encourage certain behaviours without making it a conformance requirement (thereby breaking existing implementations). The normative requirements are expressed (and always have been) in RFC2119 language.


Change applied with 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 08:19:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 June 2012 08:19:53 GMT