- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:04 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> There is then a RFC 2119 "may" which is applicable when the (previous) >> RFC 2119 "should" cannot be applied. My reading of the "may" is that >> the usage is not entirely correct. I am not raising that as an issue. > > I still don't get what the issue is :-) Yeh, neither do I, and I'm pretty sensitive to those SHOULD+MAY issues. The one in Section 3.1.1.5 seems perfectly fine: it says that the server SHOULD do something, and that if the server has not done that the client MAY do something to try to compensate. A-OK to me. The tricky bits with SHOULD+MAY occur when both key words apply to the same entity under the same conditions. That's not the case here. Barry
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 15:28:31 UTC