- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:24:39 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 1/08/2015 12:40 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2015-07-31 14:22, Pete Resnick wrote: >> On 31 Jul 2015, at 5:41, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> On 2015-07-30 22:08, Pete Resnick wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Comments: >>>> >>>> No major issues at all in this document, but a couple of things to >>>> consider. >>>> >>>> Minor Issues: >>>> >>>> Section 3 of this document seems to change the MAY in RFC 7231 section >>>> 3.1.2.2 regarding the 415 response to a SHOULD. I don't see any >>>> particular justification for that. >>> >>> I'd say that this is intentional. We really *want* people conforming >>> to this spec to sue 415 in this cases, so a SHOULD seems to be >>> justified. >> >> Well, “want” is not a reason to make a protocol requirement :-) , but I >> think I get your meaning: It *is* important for better interoperability >> for people to use this. > > The whole point of this protocol is to expose this information, so > saying "MAY" here would be contrary to that goal. And the other reason behind that change is that cice compliant clients not getting 415 are likely to re-try the request including the broken encoding again and again and ... as they try every other possible reason for it to be rejected. Amos
Received on Friday, 31 July 2015 19:25:49 UTC