- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:11:38 +1100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 30/03/2013, at 3:39 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. There seem to be a lot of MAYs in p2; some of them are mostly harmless, but this one seems to be actively misleading. Roy, Julian? > The SHOULD is qualified sufficiently that I believe that a MUST is > more appropriate. The requirement is of the form "SHOULD... unless...", with the clause: > , unless the variance cannot be crossed or the origin server has been deliberately configured to prevent cache transparency. so I think this one is OK. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 22:12:09 UTC