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

Re: [editorial] awkward sentence for a MUST statement in section 6.3 Upgrade

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:42:27 +0100
Message-ID: <50EC6893.2010602@gmx.de>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
CC: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-01-08 16:43, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Very good catch, Karl!
>
>> In section 6.3 Upgrade in Version 21 of messaging
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21#section-6.3
>>
>>      For example, if the Upgrade header field
>>      is received in a GET request and the server
>>      decides to switch protocols, then it MUST
>>      first respond with a 101 (Switching Protocols)
>>      message in HTTP/1.1 and then immediately
>>      follow that with the new protocol's equivalent
>>      of a response to a GET on the target resource.
>>
>> I would drop the "For example", if it's really a MUST.
>
> I think that's not the right fix, though.  It really is an example,
> and the MUST is already specified above this.  I think the right
> answer is to lower-case the "must", or change it to "then it first
> responds... and immediately follows that...."

Indeed: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2101>.

BTW, Roy has been very busy updating Parts 1 and 2, so right now, it's 
much more useful to review the current edits in SVN (see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki#HTTP1.1Deliverables>).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 18:42:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2013 18:42:59 GMT