W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p1: BWS

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:25:12 +1000
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <468FAE72-012D-43EB-A5A7-EAA137687F87@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

On 18/04/2013, at 4:02 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Agreed, but on the other hand, requiring that some intermediaries that do
> not even use these fields to fix them can increase the risk of breaking
> something between the client and the server. And since many of them will
> not do it anyway, we'll end up with another MUST that is not respected,
> so probably a SHOULD would be more appropriate ?

A SHOULD is not a MUST that we sort-of mean. At least, that's not what we say, even if it is how we tend to use it sometimes (more feedback forthcoming).


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 12:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC