Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 10 July 2013 11:42 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 094DC21F9FC5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 cSlGg2vILQXh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79FAD21F9B97 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Uwsm3-0001L0-GF for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:41:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:41:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Uwsm3-0001L0-GF@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 1Uwslu-0001KL-Lw for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:41:22 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Uwslt-0000NK-Hl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:41:22 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LzLJR-1UAKfS2GFV-014SjV; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:40:43 +0200
Message-ID: <51DD4836.1060204@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:40:38 +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> <51D0903E.2070704@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <51D0903E.2070704@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:u5GyjabVwsEpWM6Tzeb+Mi9BHxtmdyzTwb2N7lN/GLmLVWmNzQP MKV6XASkcNXec8GfLRebUKEM4SZ1InGBt/PmnYS8P8DTPNA4vpKOGWJY0z8i76P+HHpESp3 LrX+OqRVFi3q4Y5y0f5OfoCKA9LExC8qTCzCkf+MXHdwZPqi7/vXiKP/kaI+DVvilEQ2rvX tE48HdsXe50CG4uIpqGVQ==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.423, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Uwslt-0000NK-Hl ab6a1c89322c5802e0c7fc3f46acc5de
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #481, was: WGLC: p7 MUSTs
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51DD4836.1060204@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18669
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 22:08, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>> 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
> ...

I haven't seen a concrete change proposal yet. Note that we *will* 
submit a new draft by next Monday.

Best regards, Julian