Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 30 June 2013 20:09 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 5D0C421F9A1D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.600, 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 aZvFDEGIW+ah for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98EA21F91A5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UtNw1-00057M-4V for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:09:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:09:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UtNw1-00057M-4V@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UtNvl-00056Z-PQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:09:05 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UtNvk-0002yV-L6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:09:05 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.29]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LuJ33-1UDHnd0dcN-011jor for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:08:38 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2013 20:08:38 -0000
Received: from p5DD96C36.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [93.217.108.54] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 30 Jun 2013 22:08:38 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+b92VeXZGbG7EDi6rnpXpwC5PktjqvXEda8TXma2 xupuTgq1nCkQaj
Message-ID: <51D0903E.2070704@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:08:30 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
CC: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <D69329FD-7456-46C5-BE24-6E7EE7E48C39@mnot.net> <5180A37D.6050003@measurement-factory.com> <51B4B40B.1080800@gmx.de> <51B4CE53.5010204@measurement-factory.com> <51D06141.9090606@gmx.de> <51D08B07.5020801@measurement-factory.com>
In-Reply-To: <51D08B07.5020801@measurement-factory.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.244, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UtNvk-0002yV-L6 cd2f9c4bd24978273d97663cd2a7336c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51D0903E.2070704@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18435
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 2013-06-30 21:46, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 06/30/2013 10:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2013-06-09 20:49, Alex Rousskov wrote: >>> If you say "server MUST NOT send X", the proxy becomes responsible for >>> not forwarding X. If you say "server MUST NOT generate X", the proxy >>> forwarding behavior is not restricted by that specific requirement. When >>> you say "request MUST NOT have X", the specs become ambiguous: some will >>> claim that a proxy forwarding X is in violation and some will claim that >>> the requirement is not applicable to proxies. > >> The trouble is that what you're asking for a change in requirements, and >> that most definitively is *not* an editorial change. > > Whether polishing how these ambiguous requirements are worded actually > changes those requirements depends on whether the reader believes that > the proxy must police the given aspect of the message. Some readers may > indeed decide that your polishing is not editorial in nature, depending > on how you change the specs. The very fact that you suspect there will > be protocol changes essentially implies that the current requirements > are ambiguous and ought to be fixed. > > >> As such, I'm not >> too enthusiastic to make these kind of changes without feedback from the >> working group. > > On the other hand, it is difficult to provide feedback without seeing > the changes. Well, you could make a concrete change proposal. >> Do people agree that these requirements need to be rephrased? Do we have >> concrete proposals about *how* to change them? > > FWIW, I do: Reword them to name the actor (client or server, usually > obvious) and use "generate" instead of "send". When that default does > not seem appropriate to you or others, let's discuss! I don't think that it's sufficient to do that. What you propose is to erase the current language that defines validity of the message format and replace it by something else. I don't think we should do that. We *can* discuss clarifying what that means for the various actors, though. Best regards, Julian
- Working Group Last Call on the HTTPbis document s… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call on the HTTPbis docume… Julian Reschke
- WGLC: p1 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Willy Tarreau
- WGLC: p2 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection i… Alex Rousskov
- WGLC: p4 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- WGLC: p5 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- WGLC: p6 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- WGLC: p7 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length? Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection i… Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length? Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection i… Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length? Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection i… Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length? Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection i… Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length? Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection i… Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC: p5 MUSTs Ken Murchison
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection i… Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p5 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p7 MUSTs Mark Nottingham
- Re: WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length? Mark Nottingham
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Mark Nottingham
- Re: WGLC: p5 MUSTs Mark Nottingham
- #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs Julian Reschke
- Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs Julian Reschke
- Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs Julian Reschke
- Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs Julian Reschke
- #483, was: WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length? Julian Reschke
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Roy T. Fielding
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Alex Rousskov
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Roy T. Fielding
- Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs Roy T. Fielding
- Re: WGLC: p2 MUSTs Roy T. Fielding
- Re: WGLC: p2 MUSTs Amos Jeffries
- Re: WGLC: p4 MUSTs Roy T. Fielding