WGLC: SHOULD and conformance

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 April 2013 02:27 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 D632521F9B63 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.86
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.739, 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 0ST-CwC2-zTb for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F55221F9B60 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX0H0-0004SJ-6D for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:26:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:26:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX0H0-0004SJ-6D@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX0Gq-0004Ra-S2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:26:20 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX0Gq-0007C2-83 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:26:20 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8738750A85 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:25:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E83CA981-44A6-46CC-A026-A64A4B87214E@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:25:54 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.361, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UX0Gq-0007C2-83 b160ec9007786c5c07081b6b7630122b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: WGLC: SHOULD and conformance
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E83CA981-44A6-46CC-A026-A64A4B87214E@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17700
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>

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/