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

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:53:59 +0200
Message-ID: <51DD7587.5080705@gmx.de>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
CC: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-07-10 16:42, Jeff Pinner wrote:
> Julian, if you recall (or have easily accessible) I'd love to hear the
> rational for the "ought to be handled as an error" line as opposed to a
> "SHOULD return a 400" or "MUST return a 400."
> Perhaps it is due to some subtlety that should lead us to reconsider the
> 2.0 requirement? Or perhaps it is due to legacy implementations and it
> could guide us in wording to add to a HTTP/1.1 <--> HTTP/2.0 section?
> - Jeff

Generally, when we say "ought to" it's because it's a really good idea, 
but for some reason we really can't require it. In this particular case 
I suspect that it's a problem common enough so that existing UAs simply 
can't enforce it (the error handling).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 14:54:34 UTC

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