Re: 9.2.2, Rough Consensus, and Working Code from Patrick McManus on 2014-11-06 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2014)

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:04:25 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqM3keFXa+H2B=wabN3Zyf0srE4PPK44fOKS5DL5s_2zA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Dare I say MAY?


in this particular case I think {SHOULD NOT, MAY, SHOULD} are largely the
same when implementing a conforming peer - its something to prepare for but
that cannot be relied on. SHOULD is better advice, but I don't think it
really will make a difference in practice so I would feel the same about
both SHOULD and MAY.

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 15:04:48 UTC