IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 31 July 2013 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A833321E80BE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PlbQHHQzG-Na for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82DB21F9E21 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4Xh6-0007Nh-5M for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:48:04 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:48:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4Xh6-0007Nh-5M@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>) id 1V4Xgv-0007KZ-7c for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:47:53 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>) id 1V4Xgs-0001zT-J4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:47:53 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ef5so1499665obb.23 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=87jOJwPwZTwTGEJov+9ffXxBWecFk3LzPPLy4u8rtHw=; b=NAySQ5TH45Y/A1KJmqI22K90WB5frNzcK/y50a4+mH/kHI7KL0Ux4uPstiaIWlmxzI 4kns7LqS1OIOUayD42w8vHUHPr/Fp8Pj2VZpEvktmQ5B9dv+oVwc1+oWIiYjbrJdXDgw EopVR17zPEEoJAmUhSMQRW5ourYU+cgXZCUcp85OubAJl25Q79eCEMdE9trFDAmiX70b Uc+Iot/BylYfNSunAsM+aP5xQHBRAmT/O8ILsaURgDUyxuhFEHTHxkEH19rr+46Tb2df zgszH5OS08ZKZcES5eMSq714ySFswE7qsZLP9uOJjsg4NDZkzan9DSNaP8Lcy0OvPOrs PnUg==
X-Received: by 10.60.95.198 with SMTP id dm6mr67137828oeb.44.1375282044601; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mt3sm1503462oeb.1.2013.07.31.07.47.22 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51F92376.6010206@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:47:18 -0400
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de> <51F89572.1080506@dcrocker.net> <51F8C1D4.6010409@gmx.de> <51F8C30C.2060103@dcrocker.net> <20130731080256.GD7351@1wt.eu> <51F8CFCA.3090800@cisco.com> <6BE56F0C-0ADB-4545-9D67-E51368A22BAA@mnot.net> <51F914A4.4050500@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F914A4.4050500@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmwWjN25k1xFznFjFZ/34a62YUSFYWk765tez0zjUmIT9XVc/VigxmHFq1b0GUG8nyYhix0
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.214.178; envelope-from=cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org; helo=mail-ob0-f178.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.085, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4Xgs-0001zT-J4 aa5f807a104398c5bb4182df4e14c1f3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F92376.6010206@bbs.darktech.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/19014
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 31/07/2013 9:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 7/31/13 10:58 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> This is a *fascinating* thread, but until there's some general IETF consensus on such matters, I'm inclined to leave the decision about specific language in the hands of the editors; they've done well so far.
>>
> There is an IETF consensus on such matters.  It is RFC 2119.

     If I understand you correctly, you agree with Yoav that:

> It's the same with standards. We expect them to tell us what to do. So for the reader, all of the following are equivalent:

     If so, I agree with both of you.

Gili

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email