- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:08:35 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
My thinking was that it may be necessary to preserve the MUST on the presence of the header (in case any software had been written to depend upon its presence), but to loosen the implied requirement that the list of headers be complete. The text I proposed didn't really do that too well either, now that I look at it... On 04/02/2008, at 7:18 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > > I'm with Roy. The MUST is unnecessary because the response has > unambiguous semantics with or without the Allow header. I'd prefer > "MAY" but could live with "SHOULD". > > Mark. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 07:08:53 UTC