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

Re: Editorial Issue: Unknown/Undefined Settings IDs

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:52:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXRh51N_BfvMMDHVHaOMO+3dETys6cx8zY1Mr6m-Jz2DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
See earlier response.  If you want something other than "MUST ignore"
it's possible to negotiate a different protocol.

An alternative is to add a flag to settings that mark them as "MUST understand".

On 26 April 2013 13:47, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> We currently define Settings as being extensible but we do not define,
> as far as I can tell, what should happen if a Settings ID is not known
> or recognized by an endpoint.
> We could define it as MUST IGNORE but that could be dangerous
> depending on what the new setting is being used for.
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 20:52:56 UTC

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