- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:35:41 +1300
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
understood. Sorry I missed that in my original post. Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On ons, 2007-11-14 at 14:29 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> >>> On ons, 2007-11-14 at 11:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>> >>>> OTOH, making this requirement a SHOULD is probably closer to >>>> reflecting current practice, especially if we were to have some >>>> explanatory text about it. >>>> >>> +1 >>> >>> There is no reason to have MUST level requirements without any >>> noticeable impact on the operations of the protocol. And Via is >>> certainly in that category. >>> >> I would argue we should open a new issue for this one, i5 >> (<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i5>) was about >> the inconsistency between SHOULD (14.38) and MUST (14.45). We fixed that >> IMHO correctly (using consistently the stronger requirement). >> >> So if we want to relax the MUST level requirement, that should be >> treated separately... >> > > Yes, it's two separate issues, even if the solution is mutually > exclusive in terms of text change relateive to 2616. > > Regards > Henrik > > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 02:35:05 UTC