IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <msweet@apple.com>
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 C394621E80B7; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.053
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.546, 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 wrh4eFIaOnWl; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D870F21E8064; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from relay6.apple.com ([17.128.113.90]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MVH00657F2ZZH02@mail-out.apple.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1180715a-b7f3c6d00000020e-ed-5270fd9a0d3b
Received: from [17.153.58.123] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.58.123]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay6.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id A2.27.00526.B9DF0725; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24
From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <5270C9DE.3000104@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:37:46 -0400
Message-id: <A2D74D42-CF62-4D7E-8E4E-8221F80DCA1D@apple.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131028101123.0e37a698@elandnews.com> <526FD3E8.9010904@gmx.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20131029232953.0ce8cc58@elandnews.com> <5270C9DE.3000104@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1812)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiONOqWnfu34Igg4ev+CxWv1zBZnHnwC02 i8Mts5gsnm2cz2Kx+eEbVosj32ItXvXfZHVg99h68gebx703H5k8PnyM81iy5CeTx5fLn9k8 js7bzxrAFsVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV0fe0i6XgHVvFpZ6ZzA2Mu1m7GDk5JARMJP6vv8QOYYtJ XLi3nq2LkYtDSKCXSeLAxKmMIAlhAQ+J44u7mUBsXgE9iSuPt7OA2MwCOhI7t95hA7HZBNQk fk/qAxvKCWRvm3WXGcRmEVCV+H+xgwlkKLPAdkaJ9z3f2SGatSWWLXzNDDHURmLLz5lMEJsX M0osv7cYbKqIgJbE7Xt7ga7gADpPVuLTYbMJjPyzkNwxC8kds5CMXcDIvIpRoCg1J7HSTC+x oCAnVS85P3cTIyiYGwqjdjA2LLc6xCjAwajEw9v5KD9IiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgjvqY8FQUK8 KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR55f2AUgLpiSWp2ampBalFMFkmDk6pBkZhdfN1hvu3ntf0 b9dR/zVVpO1ZqUv57IRWnTMGnyrP3pH8/9Nv31vxnqSIv7PO6vw5a21vIsWddn+dlWLP4ZTp U5vm+/5UZHyTUnfD+4Oiusi7Wi/+D3fO5pSuutaRFmY1c3Vh+3H/vcZHVSVC+yX3Xsvany1n /uWDcS+br53Gu4JTvEqNnkosxRmJhlrMRcWJAGu77hhiAgAA
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:28:59 -0700
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, ietf@ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range.all@tools.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 12:38:10 -0000

Add a forward reference to the boilerplate after the uppercase word?


On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email