- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:30 +0200
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Phillips, Addison wrote: >> The intention was to normatively refer to that matching algorithm >> that >> actually is equivalent to what RFC2616 used to define (remember, >> we're >> not changing the protocol here). Did we pick the wrong one? >> > > I responded in my response to John Cowan. I think I would want to reopen this issue. Compatibility is a Good Thing, but as I said, I think language negotiation has evolved somewhat and you could incorporate more of 4647 rather than strictly requiring Basic Filtering. > ... Addison, so I had a look at RFC 4647 and I'm totally open to allow more than Basic Filtering; but I'm not sure about what exactly we want to say... - require to try Basic Filtering First, but allow to fall back to Lookup when nothing is returned? - just stay point to Section 3.1 and leave it to the implementer? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 11:47:15 UTC