W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p1: BWS

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:17:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdrf-7h=8+68AirD8jJRvhBXf-1uxmXc_3R80418yW2uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
As an implementer having written code to handle this, I don't see a lot of
value in making it a MUST, when I'll need to have my servers handle it
anyway, in the off-chance that the load-balancer is changed or is not there.
It is really a nice-to-have kind of thing.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> On 18/04/2013, at 4:02 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, but on the other hand, requiring that some intermediaries that do
> > not even use these fields to fix them can increase the risk of breaking
> > something between the client and the server. And since many of them will
> > not do it anyway, we'll end up with another MUST that is not respected,
> > so probably a SHOULD would be more appropriate ?
> A SHOULD is not a MUST that we sort-of mean. At least, that's not what we
> say, even if it is how we tend to use it sometimes (more feedback
> forthcoming).
> Cheers,
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 22:17:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC