Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 3 Sep 2015, at 10:07, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2015-09-03 16:12, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> On 3 Sep 2015, at 3:40, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>>> This goes back to the discussion about whether we are changing
>>> HTTP/1.1, or whether this is an optional extension (which it is; I
>>> don't believe we have consensus to make a change here that would 
>>> make
>>> existing HTTP/1.1 servers non-compliant).
>> I personally think a MUST in this draft would be expected to apply to
>> implementers of this draft, not people who don't implement (or 
>> possibly
>> even read) it.
> Yes, but we're stating that this spec updates the definition of 
> Accept-Encoding and status 415, so it would become a normative HTTP 
> requirement (IMHO).

Ah, point taken.

>>> The intent of this spec is to be eventually in-lined into 
>>> RFC7231bis;
>>> as such it might make sense to actually get rid of the first two
>>> SHOULDs. The SHOULD NOT actually can be a MUST NOT without the risk 
>>> of
>>> making any existing server non-compliant which isn't already
>>> non-compliant.
>>> "Servers that fail a request due to an unsupported content coding
>>> ought to respond with a 415 status and ought to include an
>>> "Accept-Encoding" header field in that response, allowing clients to
>>> distinguish between content coding related issues and media type
>>> related issues. In order to avoid confusion with media type related
>>> problems, servers that fail a request with a 415 status for reasons
>>> unrelated to content codings MUST NOT include the "Accept-Encoding"
>>> header field."
>> Are you proposing to make that change now, or at the point of merging
>> into RFC7231bis
> I think we should make this change right now.

That would resolve my comment.



Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 15:10:14 UTC