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