Re: WGLC: SHOULD and conformance

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 08:14 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 BD1FF21F9C55 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.383, 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 MrIHm8GtQqvl for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F0B21F9C1E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX5hS-0005Z1-9z for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:14:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:14:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX5hS-0005Z1-9z@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1UX5hG-0005Wn-LL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:13:58 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.207] helo=homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1UX5hF-0001Lh-Dy for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:13:58 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EBB1B405F; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=q+ERVaQRUjcPd4ICmvGPCt5vWpc=; b=SErbhcQYkPLS5kVHqZVPMPglS94W rcLkJwg1WYeSvOiI1M7XyNOUtah2SND9IL9MG1fatMol9DirHZK0MUMarHvcROi0 Fq9ayrC6vTitZTqcOBsEe26vFq2CiQ3oycEN8Rn6KNy9L+pJQiM3QqwS1ObViClV 6jlQK03t2a2KGSA=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 785FD1B4058; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <E83CA981-44A6-46CC-A026-A64A4B87214E@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:13:35 -0700
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BC626438-AFE8-4034-821F-DB3ACFCDF1C9@gbiv.com>
References: <E83CA981-44A6-46CC-A026-A64A4B87214E@mnot.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.207; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.387, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UX5hF-0001Lh-Dy 7450c7278a1c911dbf8d3cc4da598df1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC: SHOULD and conformance
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BC626438-AFE8-4034-821F-DB3ACFCDF1C9@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17720
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>

I don't believe that suggested text is consistent with RFC2119.

In fact, the existing second sentence is just wrong (there is no
need for documented exceptions), so let's just delete it.
The existing first sentence is fine.

....Roy

On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Up until now, we've had this to say about the status of SHOULDs regarding conformance (p1, "Conformance and Error Handling):
> 
>> An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented exceptions is applicable.
> 
> After reviewing the specs (and taking in account the misused SHOULDs and those I think should be stronger, see previous messages), I believe that ALL of the remaining SHOULDs in the set are NOT relevant to conformance, but instead  represent implementation guidance. 
> 
> So, I propose we change the text above in p1 to:
> 
> """
> An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the MUST-level requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant to conformance, but do not formally impact it; instead, they represent implementation guidance.
> """
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
>