- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:55:24 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21/06/2012, at 3:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-19 10:10, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> On 19/06/2012, at 5:57 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> So, for consistency, we should insert: >>> >>> "Recipients MUST accept all protocol elements matching the ABNF rules defined for them." >> >> "accept" is ambiguous here. "Be able to parse" is more specific, I think. >> >>> Maybe we need "Unless otherwise noted" because of some special cases for "obs-*". >> >> yes. > > Proposed change: > > 339,347c339,349 > < Unless noted otherwise, Recipients MAY take steps to recover a usable > < protocol element from an invalid construct. However, HTTP does not > < define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it > < has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the > < protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a > < Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where > < the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF, > < whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error > < recovery could lead to dangerous consequences. > --- > > Unless noted otherwise, Recipients MUST be able to parse all protocol > > elements matching the ABNF rules defined for them and MAY take steps > > to recover a usable protocol element from an invalid construct. > > However, HTTP does not define specific error handling mechanisms, > > except in cases where it has direct impact on security. This is > > because different uses of the protocol require different error > > handling strategies; for example, a Web browser may wish to > > transparently recover from a response where the Location header field > > doesn't parse according to the ABNF, whereby in a systems control > > protocol using HTTP, this type of error recovery could lead to > > dangerous consequences. > > (Change is just in the first sentence) Looks good to me. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 23:56:01 UTC