- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:25:12 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 12:25:40 UTC