- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:58:11 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William Chan (ιζΊζ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15.10.2010 04:28, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 12.10.2010 18:38, Adam Barth wrote: >>> ... >>>> "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 >>> ... >> >> I've made it say: >> >> "If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be treated as an error by discarding the message and closing the connection." >> >> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1031>) > > Is there a reason for this to be a SHOULD instead of a MUST? I know Adam already asked that, but I don't recall seeing an answer. We can't simply break formerly-conforming implementations. What's important is IMHO that the problem is explained, and that we advise implementations what do to. Which keyword we use is unlikely to have a big effect on what implementations will do in practice. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 07:01:25 UTC