- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:52:29 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
See earlier response. If you want something other than "MUST ignore" it's possible to negotiate a different protocol. An alternative is to add a flag to settings that mark them as "MUST understand". On 26 April 2013 13:47, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > We currently define Settings as being extensible but we do not define, > as far as I can tell, what should happen if a Settings ID is not known > or recognized by an endpoint. > > We could define it as MUST IGNORE but that could be dangerous > depending on what the new setting is being used for. >
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 20:52:56 UTC