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

Re: p6: Returning the freshest response

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:39:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVtiRV0HNAY04nyD+h=0BEWt1ACCtGZSPNxgZ-cS9M=xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29 March 2013 09:02, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> The current language in
> https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#proactive.negotiation
> (MAY) and
> https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#header.vary
> (SHOULD)
> don't seem to make it a requirement.  However, the SHOULD certainly suggests
> best practice.

I think that this might trigger a review comment:

The MAY is spurious, no 2119 language is needed here: the text need
only highlight that it is possible (as opposed to permissible) for a
Vary header to be present.

The SHOULD is qualified sufficiently that I believe that a MUST is
more appropriate.
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 16:39:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 March 2013 16:39:51 UTC