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. -=R 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