Re: WGLC issue: (minor?) scope of client/server attributes (specifically: downgrades) in p1 from Nils Goroll on 2012-10-23 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2012)

From: Nils Goroll <slink@schokola.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:24:02 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5086FCE2.2090708@schokola.de>

Hi Mark,

On 10/23/12 01:09 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> we generally try not to define / require things unless they're needed for interoperability

So shouldn't the scope for downgrades be defined for interoperability?

For upgrades, the draft defines the scope to be the connection, and it appears 
to me that this would be a sensible scope also for downgrades.


Nils

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 20:24:33 UTC