Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching


Again -- this is about Warn-codes, NOT status codes.


On 05/11/2011, at 6:28 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> My feeling is that if we're certain that we won't break any client by sending
> interim 110 responses before the final response, SHOULD is the right wording to
> use to promote the new feature. However if we fear that some clients don't
> expect an 1xx interim response, then maybe we should use a MAY. I think the
> risk is not null, because till now, the only really visible 1xx is 100 which
> is exposed only when the client asks for it. I would not be surprised that a
> number of crappy package update tools or AV update daemons do not implement
> interim responses at all.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 09:50:20 UTC