W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2015

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:36:49 +0200
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <55E9AC81.7060409@gmx.de>
On 2015-09-03 17:09, Ben Campbell wrote:
> ...
>>>> 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.

Done in 
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/2c1dd8dedfa0f2c5f2b4dd90a285816a119a69e8>.

Is everybody ok with that change?


Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 14:37:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:46 UTC