- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:34:16 -0500
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@squid-cache.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11/5/06, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > > lör 2006-11-04 klockan 17:27 -0500 skrev Robert Sayre: > >> On 11/4/06, Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org> wrote: > >>> lör 2006-11-04 klockan 17:07 -0500 skrev Robert Sayre: > >>> > >>>> A new RFC can make a header mandatory for RFCNNNN compliance, > >>>> but not > >>>> HTTP/1.1 compliance. > >>> > >>> Exacly what I said. > >> > >> OK. Then I submit that such an RFC cannot claim to define HTTP/1.1. > > > > Agreed. It's at most an standards track extension to HTTP/1.1. > > Slight disagreement here: if RFCNNNN obsoleted RFC2616, without > bumping the version number, it had better be backwards compatible -- > but it is more than a standards track extension to HTTP/1.1, it > becomes the new best definition of HTTP/1.1. > No. Scroll up. Please reconcile your statements with RFC2616 and RFC2145. If you want a MUST to mean something, you need to take them seriously. thanks, Robert Sayre
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 21:34:29 UTC