- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:30:01 PDT
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> I suppose one could start a pointless argument about whether the > intention behind "potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting > retransmissions)" applies to "limiting the transmission of > unnecessary bytes over the network." I'll leave this decision > to the working group chair. Larry, if you ask me to remove this > SHOULD NOT, please say so. My personal (not wg-chair) opinion is that we should avoid placing any requirements we don't need to place. Limiting the transmission of unnecessary bytes over the network is grounds for good implementation advice, but not for a SHOULD NOT. There are a few cases where we've placed requirements for reasons other than interoperability, so I don't think it's a hard rule. Officially, we can't make requirements that don't match experience; in going from Proposed to Draft, we cannot have a "SHOULD NOT do X" if we can't document two independent interoperable implementations that don't do X; but I don't think that's an issue in this case. Larry
Received on Saturday, 19 July 1997 12:34:47 UTC