Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 30 July 2013 19:59 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 4193611E812D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.333, 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 eB1N8ndPKwf9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9839E21E80C0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4G3M-0003Re-H1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:57:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:57:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4G3M-0003Re-H1@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 1V4G3B-0003Qd-RS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:57:41 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V4G3A-0004Vu-OF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:57:41 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.107.159]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M9KR0-1Uuw7Q20HW-00CkZG for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:57:14 +0200
Message-ID: <51F81A97.1090309@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:57:11 +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: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
CC: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de> <51F7E3DE.4020804@bbs.darktech.org> <51F80A4E.9040407@gmx.de> <78425d7972bb4d8f8d0ecbf1df9b55ee@BY2PR03MB025.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <78425d7972bb4d8f8d0ecbf1df9b55ee@BY2PR03MB025.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Kz0lDWd8AZmAQjfFixUyUOXnp5EQTN/ts8dSn0jK8+UyH60t5Yl v6Ov8js6FFF8THjXXlMPt5cHyJfA2OROA0XBUC5L91WrTPsmbXvDpySxHl+0VCCQjvLLUsR 1SHpxuKhjPGy6J/P919a0R0XBp70mza0ZORMLXkIMhzGx6IPLpRWHzP1VqUonzDTYDqtI7i XaCkm7wJi4QVKf9bGcK2w==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; 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=-3.377, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4G3A-0004Vu-OF 3aa4ab63d81de5b4a772507c8240e67f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F81A97.1090309@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18986
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 2013-07-30 21:43, Mike Bishop wrote: > If I'm following you correctly, this could be restated: > > ·“MAY” – Strictly at your discretion based on what matters to you > > ·“ought to” – Or your implementation will be less effective/efficient > than it could be, without hurting anyone else > > ·“SHOULD” – Or your implementation will cause peers / the network to > suffer for your stupidity > > ·“MUST” – Or you won’t be able to interoperate with anyone Almost. Violating an "ought to" may hurt others, jusr not in the way BCP14 says. Best regards, Julian
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- RE: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Mike Bishop
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Willy Tarreau
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Willy Tarreau
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Dave Crocker
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Martin Thomson
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Dave Crocker
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Dave Crocker
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Willy Tarreau
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Yoav Nir
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Eliot Lear
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Mark Nottingham
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Michael Sweet
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Eliot Lear
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc