- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:38:57 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: William Chan (???) <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 12.10.2010 18:13, Adam Barth wrote: >>>> >>>> I would say: >>>> >>>> "...If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it MUST >>>> be treated as error." >>>> >>>> (or at the SHOULD-level if you're scared of MUST-level requirements). >>> >>> Well, "MUST be treated as error" isn't really helpful; it doesn't require >>> any observable behavior. >>> >>> That a response message like this *is* broken is a statement of fact; the >>> question is whether we want to require any specific handling. So, for >>> instance, do we want to forbid any of the behaviors we see today? (use >>> the >>> first value/use the second value/use until end of connection)? >> >> I see. I meant that the user agent MUST close the socket and ignore >> the response, or whatever the HTTP spec idiom is for instructing the >> user agent to treat this response as a fatal error. > > Yes. As a matter of fact, my proposal wasn't better in that aspect :-) > > So... > > "If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be > treated as in error by ignoring the message and closing the connection." SGTM. Adam
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 16:40:06 UTC