Re: Trailer bug

On reflection I can see the current wording is logically correct but it does seem to break with the established style for usage of MUST and MUST NOT — it reads like "MUST not do something".

It might be possible to preserve the intention of the wording whilst putting the MUST NOT action up-front:


-- > A server MUST NOT generate any header-fields in the trailer-part
-- > unless at least one of the following is true:

Best Regards

Simon


On 13 Dec 2013, at 10:36, Simon Yarde <simonyarde@me.com> wrote:

> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25#section-4.1.2
> 
>> A server MUST generate an empty trailer with the chunked transfer
>> coding unless at least one of the following is true:
> 
> 
> RFC2616:
> 
>> A server using chunked transfer-coding in a response MUST NOT use the trailer for any header fields unless at least one of the following is true:
> 
> 
> Presumably it's nicer to use the affirmative as in RFC2616:
> 
>> A server MUST NOT generate a trailer with the chunked transfer
>> coding unless at least one of the following is true:
> 
> than to bend to the MUST clause:
> 
>> A server MUST generate an empty trailer with the chunked transfer
>> coding if one of the following is false:
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 

Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 13:10:00 UTC