Re: WGLC issue: (minor?) scope of client/server attributes (specifically: downgrades) in p1 from Mark Nottingham on 2012-10-24 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2012)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:59:50 +1100
To: Nils Goroll <slink@schokola.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <B0D66A8B-8D99-440B-B53C-3177B112322A@mnot.net>

On 24/10/2012, at 7:24 AM, Nils Goroll <slink@schokola.de> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 10/23/12 01:09 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> we generally try not to define / require things unless they're needed for interoperability
> 
> So shouldn't the scope for downgrades be defined for interoperability?
> 
> For upgrades, the draft defines the scope to be the connection, and it appears to me that this would be a sensible scope also for downgrades.


A UA might decide to "remember" the downgrade longer than the scope of a single connection.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 05:00:16 UTC