- From: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:58:36 -0800
- To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- CC: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sayre At any rate, I believe other messages have established that the meaning of the HTTP version number field is pretty clear. I think the list should revisit this topic when everyone is prepared to accept the requirements of RFC 2616 and RFC 2145. Is there something unclear about "conditional conformance"? [Paul Leach] Do you mean "conditional compliance"? As in 2616: 1.2 Requirements The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [34]. An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 06:58:50 UTC