- From: Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:21:32 +0100
- To: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 09:50:04PM -0400, Jason Crawford wrote: > > Thus, it was proposed that RFC2518 bis reference RFC2965, and say that > > "clients SHOULD support cookies". > > My first impression is that I wouldn't want anything stronger than this. > It doesn't seem like something that's strictly required. Just something > that appears to be prudent in a quality product. Adding a "SHOULD" requirement that client authors implement a separate 26-page RFC would not appear to be prudent in a quality protocol spec. Regards, joe
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 06:21:33 UTC