Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of media type, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> There is then a RFC 2119 "may" which is applicable when the (previous)
>> RFC 2119 "should" cannot be applied.  My reading of the "may" is that
>> the usage is not entirely correct.  I am not raising that as an issue.
>
> I still don't get what the issue is :-)

Yeh, neither do I, and I'm pretty sensitive to those SHOULD+MAY
issues.  The one in Section 3.1.1.5 seems perfectly fine: it says that
the server SHOULD do something, and that if the server has not done
that the client MAY do something to try to compensate.  A-OK to me.
The tricky bits with SHOULD+MAY occur when both key words apply to the
same entity under the same conditions.  That's not the case here.

Barry