- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 21:32:20 +1200
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 1/08/2013 7:31 p.m., Eliot Lear wrote: > Julian, > > >> The problem that I have with this "MAY" is that it states something >> obvious; we have a flow control feature, and a party in the data flow >> can invoke it. Why is there a "MAY" here? > I had assumed that it wasn't obvious to everyone. This particular MAY > seems more intended toward the sender rather than the receiver. But > just as I said don't contort to avoid language, liberal sprinklings of > MAY area also unnecessary. > > Eliot Obvious is not always so for everybody. Being very strict is one of the things we seemed to have a minor vote consensus for earlier this week. This MAY is fully inline with that preference toward strictness. It reinforces that earlier MUST on recipients. I am for keeping it for now. It can always be reevaluated later. Amos
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 09:32:54 UTC