- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:18:54 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-06-21 01:57, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 20/06/2012, at 9:31 PM, Yutaka OIWA wrote: > >> Dear Mark, >> >> 2012/6/20 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>: >> >>> That's effectively where we are; note that there aren't any RFC2119 conformance requirements placed around this. >> >> I prefer to be explicit that use of 403 is just a preference >> and is not RFC2119 nor other "requirements". >> "Ought-to" sounds to be louder than RECOMMENDED, as a natural language. >> # correct me if I have an English problem. > > We've consistently used "ought to" to give advice and encourage certain behaviours without making it a conformance requirement (thereby breaking existing implementations). The normative requirements are expressed (and always have been) in RFC2119 language. Indeed. Change applied with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1681>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 08:19:40 UTC