- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:40:38 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:24 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2013-09-04 06:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Looks good to me. > > Thanks. > > -> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2368> Sorry for missing the boat here, but this changes the warn-date to be a required field. As mentioned previously, no implementation that I am aware of actually sends a warn-date, let alone processes one, so now we have changed a never-implemented requirement into an everyone-who-implements-is-noncompliant requirement. How does that help? I thought what I heard from the last meeting was that we would remove all requirements on warn-date except for those recipients who actually process warning header fields. ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 7 September 2013 00:40:52 UTC