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

Re: content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ-GRCCE-pXVy-mWjdSXpLs7s9k35+pyDaXKirTpt-4rg@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC