Re: #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 30 October 2013 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C3811E828B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.043
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ot92F1EL4keh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DFB11E8193 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.127.91]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MAloF-1VVhDb0ftr-00Bpfl for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:57:08 +0100
Message-ID: <5270C9DE.3000104@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:57:02 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131028101123.0e37a698@elandnews.com> <526FD3E8.9010904@gmx.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20131029232953.0ce8cc58@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131029232953.0ce8cc58@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:KbfJOCibeqxkomc832Yi8vKEEGhRAJ9nJSIOYyoN7QCmAClhW7K 2SZPEPecC2iXI2KFf6z6WeoowzVwLtDZJX0mTEs8NPVvUXpUdfUIqA0cSELd0RQrsuJEsYj ZQJMnD4bFueZHZBbO1nn05XKg+K53PF0cy7qiS0hj414c86BDciXrUoXUMTlPS4o427BYP0 AkMy05WnEGyDVgZJNdNTA==
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:57:15 -0000

On 2013-10-30 08:46, S Moonesamy wrote:
> ...
>> Such as?
>
> What I mean is that what happens is undefined when both sides do not
> follow the RFC 2119 "should".

The response is self-descriptive, so it's up to the client to properly 
process it.

>> It is supposed to be interpreted per RFC 2119.
>
> It is better to use the uppercase words after the RFC 2119 boilerplate.

But then, we don't want the boilerplate to be in front of the 
Introduction. Any *concrete* suggestion how to address this?

Best regards, Julian