Re: WGLC: SHOULD and conformance

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 April 2013 08:54 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 A20A421F9B73 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, 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 1DaFo3Gi4dqb for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAF021F9B56 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX6J6-0002ab-Cs for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:53:04 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:53:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX6J6-0002ab-Cs@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 1UX6Iv-0002Zf-W9 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:52:54 +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 1UX6Iv-00034o-B8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:52:53 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (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 2568A509B6; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 04:52:30 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <BC626438-AFE8-4034-821F-DB3ACFCDF1C9@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:52:27 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BFDD4894-8752-4E15-AC45-53951C0ADF56@mnot.net>
References: <E83CA981-44A6-46CC-A026-A64A4B87214E@mnot.net> <BC626438-AFE8-4034-821F-DB3ACFCDF1C9@gbiv.com>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
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=-3.393, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UX6Iv-00034o-B8 bedfba28bf0301d1d7bcbb048bc51573
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC: SHOULD and conformance
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BFDD4894-8752-4E15-AC45-53951C0ADF56@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17721
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>

That works for me too.

On 30/04/2013, at 6:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>; wrote:

> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/