- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:39:20 -0700
- To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29 March 2013 09:02, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: > The current language in > https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#proactive.negotiation > (MAY) and > https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#header.vary > (SHOULD) > don't seem to make it a requirement. However, the SHOULD certainly suggests > best practice. I think that this might trigger a review comment: The MAY is spurious, no 2119 language is needed here: the text need only highlight that it is possible (as opposed to permissible) for a Vary header to be present. The SHOULD is qualified sufficiently that I believe that a MUST is more appropriate.
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 16:39:48 UTC