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.

Indeed.

Change applied with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1681>.

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