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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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).

>> 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.

Best regards, Julian