Re: p1: BWS

As an implementer having written code to handle this, I don't see a lot of
value in making it a MUST, when I'll need to have my servers handle it
anyway, in the off-chance that the load-balancer is changed or is not there.
It is really a nice-to-have kind of thing.
-=R


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>